I know and admire Diane Lim Rogers. She's a friend, colleague, and frequent co- conspirator when it comes to budget. But Brad DeLong has her number with this post: No Diane, having any budget commission is not necessarily better than not having one.
I truly wish this wasn't the case. But when, as Brad points out, a commission is really just an excuse to do less now and a subterfuge for what's really happening, I don't see the value. Given all the failed budget commissions and summits of the past and the fact that the moon and stars don't seem to be in proper alignment for one to succeed now, I'd much rather have members of Congress take their lumps at the next election for not using the power they already have to deal with the deficit than to promise for no apparent reason that somehow a commission is going to be different this time.
What would be better than a commission? A serious Ross Perot-like outside effort that so raises the deficit issue in the minds of voters that the politics of not dealing with it changes. That's when some thing will actually occur.
take health care off the
take health care off the table, and glenn beck and the rest of the wingnuts will make the debt and deficits the issue that drives the next election cycle...
It depends
Stan,
Whether a commission is better than nothing quite depends on what you think nothing will bring. Personally, I rate the probability of meaningful Congressional action on the long term financial situation of the country as roughly zero. Neither do I buy Brad's and your contention that there will be a political price to pay for inaction.
I think action only likely in the face of a material external stimulus. The ones that come obviously to mind (default, rapid inflation) are reasonably unpleasant. Maybe a commission offers the potential to be an external stimulus. Maybe it's a small chance (I think it is) but a small chance is better than no chance at all.
Remind me if you will of a politician who lost an election for not dealing with the deficit. I can't think of any, certainly not in the absence of a major third party challenge (something I see as relatively unlikely in the short term).
Parenthetically, the examples that Stan chooses indicate his policy/political slant. Not saying they aren't valid examples but most of the people he mentioned did vote against $800 billion in new spending this year and $150 billion a year in perpetuity. I don't know how they voted on the SS "COLA" but that's another example of fiscal profligacy which one could mention but somehow Stan chose not to.