- ISIL creates all-female brigade to terrorize women into following Sharia law
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama to Latin leaders: Help with border
- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
Debt panel trade-off: Exposure vs. efficiency
Transparency could stymie deal
Question of the Day
The congressional supercommittee charged with tackling the federal debt crisis is facing overwhelming calls to conduct all its deliberations in the open, but some voices are warning that too much transparency could end up dooming the whole thing.
“Do you want to get anything done?” said former Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, Virginia Republican. “I think you lock them in a closed room and let them hammer it out, where they can say what they want to say, where they can bring up what they want to bring up and not have it held against them on the Sunday talk shows.”
Starting with Barack Obama’s campaign pledge in 2008 to broadcast health care negotiations on C-SPAN, the push for transparency as Congress and the White House sort out the big issues of the day has gone into overdrive. But Mr. Davis and other skeptics represent a growing sense that having all the discussions in the open can hinder negotiations.
The debt deal between Mr. Obama and congressional leaders this month spawned the bipartisan panel, which is charged with finding $1.5 trillion over the next decade in tax increases or lower projected spending.
The members of the supercommittee were hand-picked by the Democratic and Republican leaders of the two chambers of Congress, but the legislation said little about how the 12-member panel should operate.
Congressional leaders and dozens of public-interest groups have joined a call to push for transparency and open deliberations. They are seeking to have every official hearing or meeting webcast live and want any meetings with lobbyists or other interest groups to be logged and published.
“This committee has enormous responsibility and power, and must be open to public scrutiny in order to maintain public faith in its work,” the Sunlight Foundation, a public-interest group, said in a letter to leaders this month. “Public interest in the committee’s work could hardly be greater, and the public, along with members of Congress, must be able to evaluate its work, not just its final product.”
The trade-off is clear. It’s often tougher to strike a deal in public, but it’s also tougher to sell a deal that has been written behind closed doors — particularly if the deal needs to be sold to other members of Congress.
Many lawmakers not picked for the panel are pushing for complete openness.
“The supercommittee has the potential to make game-changing reforms that will remedy our budget for decades to come,” 16 House members said in a bipartisan letter. “We simply want to ensure that the process by which these critical decisions are made, that will result in billions of dollars in budget cuts impacting every American, will be as open, transparent and accountable as possible.”
Those who have been through these sorts of endeavors said too much openness could prevent any deal from being reached.
Former Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was part of the deficit commission that made a crack at budget cuts and tax increases last year, said open meetings give too much ammunition to single-issue interest groups.
“The reason people want a public forum is so that nothing happens. That’s the bottom line here [for] the interest groups on the hard right and the hard left,” Mr. Gregg said. “These interest groups have no interest in the national agenda of fiscal responsibility.”
Mr. Gregg said that compressed time frame means that hearings might have to be abbreviated so committee members can work on a package. He said the process will have to be open when the committee’s proposal goes to the floors of both chambers of Congress.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Stephen Dinan can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Lois Lerner emails reveal gaping open-records loophole
- Two-thirds of illegal immigrant children approved for asylum: report
- Top Justice official denies conspiring with IRS on tea party targeting
- Boehner: No bill on border surge
- Taking Obama to court a long shot but lawsuit not folly, Congress is told
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
By Mark Davis
The nation founders, the Lone Star State thrives
- Rahm Emanuel: Send illegal immigrant shelter kids to Chicago
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- Tactical advantage: Russian military shows off impressive new gear
- CURL: Obama, staffers not even pretending any more
- Family of Marine killed in Afghanistan pushes back against cover-up
- Pentagon running out of time to find mass of missing weapons in Afghanistan
- Washington Times strikes content and marketing partnership with Redskins
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama family set to buy $4.25M desert home in California: report
- ORTEL: Note to Janet Yellen: The American bubble is popping
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq