Federal Judiciary

The Losers? Congress -- By: The Editors

November remains a political eternity away, but the Democrats foresee a thrashing for themselves. But they are not a party to take 'No' for an answer, even from the electorate, and so they plan to make the most of their losses, relying on their defeated and retiring candidates to pass the remains of their controversial and destructive legislative agenda in a post-election 'lame duck' session -- call it the 'Quitters' and Losers' Congress.'

Naturally, there is at least one Republican who bears watching, in case he should step up to aid the Democrats' cause: in this case, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, himself a notably lame duck and occasional interference-runner for the Obama administration. Senator Gregg, who once accepted and then rejected a nomination to serve in Obama's cabinet, was tapped to represent Republicans on the president's deficit-reduction commission, opposite Wall Street Democrat Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff to Bill Clinton. Because the hardcore base of the Democratic party is reliant upon high levels of government spending in the form of bloated salaries for government employees, welfare checks, and government grants to 'community organizers,' President Obama and his congressional colleagues are not eager to balance the budget with spending cuts. Instead, they want to emphasize tax increases, wherever possible, in whatever modest deficit-reduction program ultimately is enacted. The entire point of the deficit commission, as Grover Norquist of Americans  for Tax Reform has observed, is to get Republican fingerprints on that tax hike, and 'Gregg seems to be giving them all ten fingers.'

#ad#The federal deficit, which is caused by a combination of incontinent congressional appropriations and the unsustainable design of our Social Security and Medicare systems, is the biggest domestic problem facing the United States. Left unaddressed, it will cause all manner of economic and social havoc. Because it is such an important issue -- and because whatever combination of lower spending and higher revenue is used to address the problem will significantly alter the relationship between taxpayers, tax-consumers, and the government -- it is an issue that deserves to be addressed by a Congress that is accountable to the people at the time it takes action. A lame-duck Congress this year will in all likelihood be dominated by unaccountable legislators -- those who are on their way out, who are no longer answerable to the voters whom they purport to represent, and who may have ulterior motives, such as the desire to be appointed to a cushy federal post or university sinecure upon leaving office.

We have been here before. In 1944, for instance, there was a lame-duck session during which issues of critical importance -- much of the postwar order of the American government -- were up for debate, and Congress had the good sense to defer most of the action until the newly elected representatives took their seats at the next session. There were some big items on the table -- Bretton Woods, Social Security reforms, trade legislation -- and the republic managed to survive the deferral of a vote upon them. (The main action was the renewal of the War Powers Act and the confirmation of a new secretary of state: reasonable actions for a lame-duck Congress in 1944.)

Of particular concern is the possibility that Senator Gregg's panel will use its deficit-reduction mandate to try to impose a value-added tax (VAT)  on the United States, further Europeanizing our national economy. A VAT would be a fundamental change in American commerce and American government, and absolutely should not be enacted by an unaccountable, lame-duck Congress.

In November, the voters will make it known how they feel about the recent radical expansions in the scope and expense of American government, and they deserve to have their opinions taken into consideration when it comes to addressing the deficit. More important: They deserve to have someone to hold accountable if the taxers and spenders in Washington do not strike the right balance. Between now and November, Republicans should press Democratic office-seekers at every turn and work to extract the appropriate promises on this issue, even if that means making the lame-duck session an election issue in its own right. Even the lamest of congressmen should know better than to duck that obligation to the voters.

Full post as published by Bench Memos - National Review Online on July 26, 2010 (boomark / email).