EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
How to Make the Super Congress Open and Accountable
The last thing we need is an all-powerful congressional committee allowed to make crucial spending decisions without the scrutiny of an engaged citizenry and press.
As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility. In Washington, great power should also require great transparency.
The hurriedly passed Budget Control Act raised the nation's debt ceiling and made some efforts to reduce the deficit. The law also demands that Congress reduce the deficit another $1.2 trillion through spending cuts and additional revenue. The power to choose how those reductions will be concentrated in the hands of the 12 members of the Joint Select Committee on Debt Reduction, nicknamed the "Super Congress." ![](/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/supercongress_0.jpg "The "Super Congress"")
The "Super Congress"
Are you worried yet? Considering that the debt ceiling negotiations — including the idea to create this committee — were conducted mostly behind closed doors and in secret meetings, you should be.
The last thing we need is an all-powerful congressional committee allowed to make crucial spending decisions without the scrutiny of an engaged citizenry and press. The Project On Government Oversight (POGO), where I work, and other advocacy groups are calling on the Super Congress to deliberate in the open and make decisions based on what's best for the American public, not powerful special interests.
Corporate lobbyists are already lining up to meet with the newly appointed members of the debt committee, but none of these lobbyists are clamoring for a transparent process. They'd like nothing more than to be able to sway the committee behind the scenes, out of the public eye.
To prevent that type of influence peddling, POGO and its coalition partners sent an Aug. 8 letter to House and Senate leaders from both parties outlining steps they can take to ensure transparency.
Meetings convened by the Super Congress should be open to the public, broadcast live on its website, and archived online along with transcripts. In addition to the webcasts, all agendas, witness lists, and testimonies should be made publicly available online.
When defense, health, oil, and other industry lobbyists come knocking, the committee should post information about those meetings with staff and committee members to the website. This should include any written materials from the meetings and a summary of verbal communications. All committee and staff members should post their financial disclosure reports online.
As special interests assert their influence with campaign contributions, committee members should disclose those contributions within 24 hours of receiving them. Without these rules, special interests will have the loudest voice because they have the fattest checkbooks, and will have the most access in secret proceedings.
The timely posting of all of this information to the committee's website is only one aspect of transparency. The committee must also facilitate and accept public comments about any proposals. This is an important principle — and a part of federal rulemaking by agencies — but rarely, if ever, done by Congress. With the prospect that these debt reductions will deeply affect all Americans, it's an important step to take now.
The committee website should have an easy-to-use way for people to contact the committee and its staff. In addition, the committee should ask for and publish comments from the public about their report before a final vote. The final report should be posted at least 72 hours before the final vote to allow for public feedback.
To help the public provide an informed opinion on the committee's report, all proposals received by the Super Congress from standing congressional committees, as well as the Congressional Budget Office analyses of the numbers behind the committee recommendations, should be disclosed.
No matter what it decides, there will be plenty of contention over this committee and its report. Reducing at least $1.2 trillion in federal spending is a formidable task, but one that can only be completed with the utmost integrity if the process is open. The arguments of sensitivity or urgency don't trump the need for transparency and involvement by the public.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
55 Comments so far
Show AllAnother weak-kneed loser liberal proposal justifying the fleecing of the people.
This "super congress" needs to be abolished. It is not supposed to be open. Would you believe them if they said it was? Andre Francisco seems to think so. Precious.
The super congress's whole reason for existence is get into a deadlock which will then "trigger" automatic cuts, and of course liberals find a way and bow down to this.
Regardless of the reason the committee exists, the recommendations made in this article will never be adopted. After all if this committee implemented the changes, there would be no excuse for all congressional committees not to implement them, and that will never happen.
Since January 20, 2009 Team Obama has delivered the transparency (that candidate Obama repeatedly promised) only when they were successfully sued for failing to be transparent.
Anybody who believes that Obama's Super Catfood Commission will be any different, please raise your hand !
Absolutely ridiculous.
This committee was created to deliberately obfuscate and confuse, so Andre Francisco thinks we need to make it do otherwise!
Also, Washington Lobbyists do not "come knocking" at congress.
Who would knock on any door that they already own?
Look at the photo of Andre Francisco. Doesn't it look like Santa just promised to bring him a pony for Christmas?
Hilarious, and so true. And I agree with you that the Super Congress (called by some the Catfood II Commission) is unconstitutional. It effectively disenfranchises millions of voters whose congress members and senators are not on the committee, the fact that they will have an up or down vote on its recommendations notwithstanding. Full participation in Congress transcends just voting on final bills. Calling for transparency from this travesty is shutting the barn door after the horse got out.
"To prevent that type of influence peddling, POGO and its coalition partners sent an Aug. 8 letter to House and Senate leaders..."
I bet that got their attention.
Count how many times the word "should" appears in the article.
at least he's trying, what are you doing other than being cynical
^^ Ah, sweet innocence!
fuck you wobbly
enjoy your life of "resignation"
Well, the letter may have been "sternly worded" !? (a la H. Reid). # : D
The very *existence* of the "super" committee is proof that the game's over.
For further proof, the Democratic nominee, Bachus, arrested MDs and RNs for daring to want to *discuss* Single Payer.
No, this game is rigged. The only things that could change that would be massive work stoppages and demonstrations.
But that won't happen - most people (including Republicans) have no idea that their SS and Medicare are about to be taken from them.
The very existence of the super committee is just another example of the failure of leadership in the Democratic Party.
So now we're stuck with it. But once again the Democrats are ceding the rules of the game to the right-wingers.
If it's OK for the Tea Party to announce up front that an honest discussion about taxes is off the table, why doesn't the White House announce up front that any proposal from the committee that doesn't include a meaningful tax component will be subject to veto?
Two could play that game -- if they wanted to.
Where's the leadership?
The Democratic Party leadership has been very successful...at delivering for Wall Street.
"The last thing we need is an all-powerful congressional committee allowed to make crucial spending decisions without the scrutiny of an engaged citizenry and press."
Doesn't Francisco know that "the last thing we need" is the only thing we ever get from this congress and this pathetic tool of a president? Maybe if I call all the corporate stooges on the super congressional committee and Voice My Concerns they'll listen to me, since I'm a citizen of the United States! We just have to hold their feet to the fire! While I'm at it, isn't there some petition I can sign today begging President Obama to do something that benefits all Americans, and not just "special interests"? I can't wait to do my civic duty and feel all empowered.
Maybe the "super congress" will do a tour of the country too! The could have a few town hall meetings and answer questions from the public, and they will keep their pens and notebooks at hand to record all the suggestions and input they receive.
.
And, picture this, the whole process will be televised and internetized, and open government will reign supreme throughout the lands. Then these great and noble statemen and women will return to their hallowed chamber on the hill in their shining city. And with their characteristic superhuman grace, empathy, wisdom, selfless noble nature as public servants, and shaman like foresightedness they will craft a peice of legislation that will become the bulwark and the foundation for the future of America.
.
I will write them a letter that will give them the resolve they need to free themselves of the hypnotic charm of the lobbyists.
Yawn...
Yep, it's okay to rape me AS LONG AS YOU USE A LUBRICATED CONDOM.
It's surreal to see all these liberals still pretending that their government is answerable to the people. Friggin' la la land.
Good luck with that. You have good ideas, though.
I don't have to read this article. All I have to say is yerfuckinkiddinme, right?
For better or worse, elainem, I did read the article. So I can provide an authoritative answer to your question: right.
Duh! It is so easy to fix. Make lobbyists and lobbying illegal. When companies, such as Pfizer, require their employees to donate a sum of their salaries for Pfizer's lobby, Americans and Pfizer employees are, quite frankly, getting a good old "shaf-ing"
The playing field is not just. Americans, with one vote each and not much money to buy their Congressmen, are being shut out of our democracy because we do not have the sense to make lobbies illegal. .
exactamundo
If we need to, make an amendment to the Constitution! I know that about 80% of Americans would vote for that! The other 20%, comprising lobbyists, their immediate families, their cousins, their concubines, the beneficiaries of lobbyists in Congress (Israel included), would be against it. Not difficult.
And besides, "Influence Peddling" is already an illegal activity...
Citizens do not vote on Constitutional Amendments -- they are adopted by approval from 38 of the 50 State Legislatures.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/
Actually, they might be able to.
The situation has not come up so far, but the 9th Amendment says that just because the Constitution has enumerated certain rights, that doesn't mean that unmentioned ones are denied, and the 10th suggests that rights of the States are also rights of the People.
But I think -Moi- just meant that 80% of the People would elect State Legislators who would vote for such an Amendment.
Yes.
And the solution is to aim even higher than one Amendment and call for a Constitutional Convention.
Gonna come back at me with a "well how are you going to do it"? 'Cause I'm writing a book on the question and I have about 150 pages of answer I could give you so far. ;)
Amendment and Convention processes are not the same ol' DC game, just more of it. They are radically different.
"As special interests assert their influence with campaign contributions, [Super Catfood] Committee members should be required to disclose those contributions within 24 hours of receiving them. Without these rules, special interests will have the loudest voices because they have the fattest checkbooks....." Andre Francisco of POGO
Now that's what I call an illusory safeguard if there ever was one.
The Super Catfood Committee must reach bipartisan "compromise" to shred the social safety net in the fall of 2011, or else the Sword of Damacles falls under the Budget Act deal and pre-agreed cuts in both defense spending and domestic entitlement program spending supposedly kick in.
The Catfood Repugs and Teabaggers therefore will hang tough as usual, keeping their promises of no new taxes while licking their chops at the prospect of accusing the Dems of cutting funds for our heroic troops in harms way and jeopardizing national security (according to Obama's own Defense Secretary Leon Panetta). As a result, with a great public gnashing of teeth the Dems will roll over just before the deadline, gutting Medicare and Social Security in the spirit of bipartisan compromise beyond the wildest wet dreams of George W. Bush and Reagan. That's the script.
Those events unfold in the fall of 2011.
So who will then give a sweet rat's ass if, in the first quarter of FY 2012, millions or even billions of lobbyist-bundled special interest campaign dollars get kicked back to the Committee members for services rendered?
A behind-the-scenes wink, a nod, a handshake, and an oral promise from the Koch brothers, or the designated lobbyist-of-the-day for Wall Street or for any other special interest group, pledging to hand over a check (or withhold and give my opponent a check) for a bundled up million dollars after the dirty deed's done is every bit as corrupting an influence as cash payment up front on the barrel head. All the openness and transparency in the world after the fact is still a day late and a dollar short.
Bill from Saginaw
This headline made me laugh so loud that my neighbors came over to inquire what was so funny. After I had shown them the source of my mirth one of them remarked: "that is akin to asking a kleptomaniac to stop stealing ".
But he sent them a letter!
Am I the only one who gets pissed when from the comfort of their homes, some posters criticize people who are out there trying to help?
This is an interesting story and states what progressives pretty much know to be the case but in more detail, but I don't see anyway this "special" committee representiving the overwealthy, over pampered power elites is going to open up or that we have the power to open it up. To me what we see here is living proof of Lord Acton's sage words "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
This is an interesting story and states what progressives pretty much know to be the case but in more detail, but I don't see anyway this "special" committee representiving the overwealthy, over pampered power elites is going to open up or that we have the power to open it up. To me what we see here is living proof of Lord Acton's sage words "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
If we were all endowed with your superior intelligence and discriminating nature it would be paradise and you would be God.
"Am I the only one who gets pissed..."
____________
Not at all-- djb (9:50am) is pretty steamed about it too.
There are a few others I can think of who may chime in, by and by.
Sorry, though, this outrage at those of us who don't subscribe to giving "E for Effort" attaboys isn't very potent or compelling.
It seems to be based on a misplaced, fallacious, and logically weak assumption that doing "something", or even "trying" to accomplish something, is by definition positive, and therefore superior to, and perforce better than, "doing nothing" but "criticizing" or "nay-saying".
Apart from a cheap shot about the author's personal appearance, the critics that burn you up so much have made intelligent, valid, trenchant criticisms of this well-meaning writer's approach. They have presented thoughtful arguments asserting that the approach is both fundamentally wrong-headed insofar as it countenances and thus reinforces illicit and fradulent political acts in the first place, and is futile to boot.
If the writer were a little child at the seashore, standing at the water's edge and flinging bucketfuls of water back into the ocean in an attempt to turn the incoming tide, it would be heartwarming and delightful to witness.
One might even praise him for his industry, initiative, and diligence, and in any event would praise his adorable, charming efforts to his watching parents or adult caregivers.
But one wouldn't give the kid credit for at least "trying" to turn back the tide-- or denounce the other kids for not lining up to cheer him on, or even form a bucket brigade that might make this thing work! Well, you and djb might.
I don't for an instant seek or hope to diminish your high dudgeon and righteous indignation. I recognize that as a matter of temperament and training, some are fated to be averse and intolerant of what they perceive as "negativity", and either shrink from or deplore qualities of "cynicism" and especially the dreaded "nihilism".
But this is a function or imperative of the psyche or emotions, not the intellect. It is neither transitive nor persuasive.
Why do I visualize Jabba the Hut farting away on his easy chair, drunk on his eloquence?
Because you dislike honest debate and more-than-one-sentence-posts? ;)
...and I like the mob even less
I'm not declaring a flame war, but if you're going to resort to lame insults, this Jabba feels constrained to fart at least once in your general direction.
I honestly try not to reply to desperate cheap shots like yours-- you know, on the theory that one ought to refrain from engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
You asked a question, and you got some answers.
Apart from the pathetic choice of responding with a sophomoric, jeering insult when the better part of valor would've been to just leave it alone, it's mordantly amusing that you respond to thoughtful and generally respectful, if critical, responses by passive-aggressive venting, and bleating that you're being bullied by a "mob".
Because in this context, "mob" can only mean "anyone who's the least bit sharper than me". Which for you, I suppose, DOES amount to a mob.
It can never be open and accountable. Or even Constitutional. It is made to sidestep the little democracy we have left. It must be abolished.
I find this article to be naive in the extreme. As if the US Government is anything but a den of vipers working to further enrich their benefactors.
Since January 20, 2009 Team Obama has delivered the transparency that Obama is a compulsive liar, doing whatever it takes to find himself in a position to acquiesce corporacratic demands.
"Super Congress"?
An oxymoron if ever there was one.
Excellent points.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
P.S. (your Caps Lock key is on.)
For one, the people here taking personal shots at this writer are jerks, and cowardly jerks at that. So brave to insult how a person looks online anonymously. I am sure you are turning the ladies away, aren't you? I agree that the idea of making this committee anything other than what it is is utopian. Isn't going to happen. The fact that this was formed in the first place is a moral outrage. The fact that it was stacked with well off, out of touch "liberals" like Kerry and right wing reactionaries says even more. THEY and the puppets masers who pull their strings, won't be harmed by these cuts and THEY, especially Kerry, are well off. After they harm people, unnecessarily, and push for irrational and failed economic policies, they can then turn around an lecture us from their pampered existence about "shared responsibility" and being the adults in the room. These bastards are going to look horribly bad by future generations, if our history doesn't get flushed down the Orwellian memory hole that is.
*******
Reduce Congress to a focus group.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
*******