Last week, the House Appropriations Committee approved the 2010 fiscal year Financial Services spending bill.  Along the way, one of the amendments that failed to make the cut was to "enact into law H.R. 1557 (the “Securing America’s Future Economy Commission Act”)".  This amendment would've created a 16-member commission charged with creating recommendations to reduce the country's long-term debt.  With a maximum of four members of Congress, this commission would have had the power to create legislation that would be considered by the House and Senate. 

While a failed amendment embedded in an appropriations bill usually isn't newsworthy, it's possible that rising public concern about the nation's long-term debt obligation might eventually lead to increased support for such a proposal.  Both H.R. 1557 and last week's amendment were introduced by Frank Wolf (R-VA).  Debt commission proposals are hardly new and are typically championed by fiscal conservatives and the defeat of last week's amendment is evidence of the partisan nature of the debate.  On the campaign trail, Obama indicated that he was against the idea of a commission that could potentially circumvent the power of Congress.  With public growing increasingly concerned about the implications of current economic policy on long-term debt, the Administration may need to do something, even if it is symbolic, to show that it is similarly concerned.  

As this proposal is written, the commission would consist of the Director of the OMB, the Secretary of Treasury, and 14 other voting members that would be appointed by the majority and minority leadership in Congress.  (The Comptroller General of the U.S. and the Director of the CBO would be non-voting members.)  The commission would be able to make write legislation that attaches a timer for Congress to act.  If Congress does not submit its own legislation within 90 days after receiving the commission's recommendations, then:

a motion to proceed to the consideration of the legislation shall be highly privileged and shall not be debatable, and a motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of shall not be in order. (Sec 13.b.1.C)

While nudging (or shoving) Congress to act may not necessarily be bad thing, one has to wonder about giving privileged legislative power to a commission that consists primarily of members who are not elected by voters.  Granted, it would seem pointless to create a commission that only had the power to make non-binding recommendations but using the appointment system to create the commission greatly reduces the appointees' accountability to the public. 

In addition to the accountability issue, critics of this type of commission say that the primary purpose of this type of legislation is to reduce entitlements.  While this remains to be seen, the Chair of the Appropriations Committee, Dave Obey, maintains that this type of legislation does not belong in an Appropriations bill.  Supporters claim that the commission would force Congress to deal with potentially politically unpopular problems.

A similar Senate bill, S. 1056 was introduced two months ago by Sens. Voinovich (R-OH), Isakson (R-GA), and Lieberman (I-CT).  The Senate version provides similar wording and some minor differences in the composition of the commission.  Both bills remain in committee, although there will likely continue to be efforts to insert the language into other legislation.

To track other budget deficit and national debt-related bills, click here.

Image by Flickr user mjpeacecorps, used under a Creative Commons license.