Deficit Commission Proposal Designed As A Horrorshow Of Legislative Dysfunction

Congressional creatures have been astir lately, with plans to shift the decision-making process on curbing deficits to a blue-ribbon commission that would make the tough choices our own lawmakers don't want to.

It's bad enough that this grandiose abdication of responsibility was prompted by a juvenile threat to not raise the federal budget ceiling. But now that it's apparent how this redundant layer of decision-making is going to be constructed, it's clear that this deficit commission is, as Matt Yglesias points out , "doomed to fail." Mainly because it would combine the finest traditions of legislative buck-passing with the Senate's trademarked ability to get bogged down in intractable gridlock.

Take it away, Senators Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) :

Senator Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat who chairs the panel, and Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican, have, according to officials, reached an agreement for an 18-member commission, with 16 of those members coming from Congress and two from the administration. The Congressional membership would be evenly divided by party.

If 14 of the 18 members of the commission could agree, their recommendations would be submitted for a vote in the House and Senate after the 2010 elections. Approval would require a supermajority.

This truly is nonsense. Why is this commission going to be comprised of Congressional members when they can, at this very moment, introduce and enact laws without the imprimatur of some external, superfluous decision-making body? The Hill reported back in November that "13 senators" were "drawing a hard line" on this. Why don't those thirteen senators just show up for this duty themselves? And how, exactly, do they imagine a body comprised of eight Democrats , eight Republicans , and two representatives from the Obama administration is supposed to work, given that they'll always have to get 14 members to sign off on any decision?

Similarly, The Hill reported earlier that the legislation would be drafted by what was to be, but now apparently isn't, an "independent commission" and would "be subject to an up-or-down vote." Now, Gregg and Conrad have outlined a plan by which "approval would require a supermajority." Been watching the Senate lately? I'm sure this is going to work out swimmingly.

Here's some hilariously withering disdain for this from Jonathan Chait :

To say that this procedure "is designed to get results" shows a very odd understanding of American political institutions. Conrad and Gregg seem to think that instituting major reforms in the public interest is rare because the threshold for passing legislation is too low. Thus they've designed a process that creates new and higher supermajority requirements, on an issue where getting even 51% to sign on is probably impossible. And if that fails, maybe they'll conclude the process was too easy. Next time they could also require the commission members to create a cold fusion reactor or retrieve a magical ring from inside a volcano.

All of which would be more entertaining than watching this farce unfold, in which lawmakers insist that something needs to be done about the budget crisis, just so long as they don't have to put their names on the dotted line.

RELATED:
The Exquisite Pointlessness of the Conrad/Gregg Commission Proposal [Matt Yglesias ]
The Deficit Commission Bill Is Here, And It's Insane [Jon Chait @ The Plank]

PREVIOUSLY, on the HUFFINGTON POST:
Insane Deficit Commission Idea Gathers Momentum

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .]