Ahmed: ‘Super Committee’ runs counter to democratic ideals

Article 1, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution states that “each house may determine the rules… Article 1, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution states that “each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.” Now more than ever, we should worry about what sort of precedent this might set.

In response to the debt-ceiling crisis, which could have led the United States into sovereign default, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 in August. One consequence of this legislation was the creation of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction — a bicameral committee composed of six Democrats and six Republicans that will dissolve once its function, to reduce the federal deficit, is complete.

This committee has often been labeled the “Super Committee.” The reasons for the nickname are manifold, but mostly it’s because the group has been tasked with producing a bill that would reduce the federal debt by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The bill is guaranteed an up-or-down vote in both houses: Neither house will be able to modify it with any amendments, nor may senators filibuster it. This gives the committee and its bill a rare authority. Proponents claim the urgency of the matter justifies these loose constraints.

The committee held its first public hearing since Sept. 22 this past Wednesday, during which it revealed only a general plan: Taxes on the rich would increase, and cuts would be made to several services, especially entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. Although the proposed cuts and taxes will affect Americans in many different ways, the information was disclosed only after a series of undercover negotiations — negotiations that the public and the press were barred from attending.

This lack of transparency prompted Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., to complain in September that “given the extraordinary jurisdiction of this committee, meetings should be held in full daylight for the public to see.” The senator even introduced the Budget Control Joint Committee Transparency Act, which seeks to ensure just that.

Representative Ron Paul, R-Texas, even called the committee unconstitutional: “There’s no authority to have a super-Congress who takes over for what the House and Senate are supposed to do,” Paul told CNBC back in August. In an interview with FOX Business, he added “Where in the world did that come from, and where is that going to lead to? That is monstrous. I keep looking, and I can’t find any place in the Constitution where we have the authority to create such a creature as the super-Congress.”

Of course, as Article I, Section 5 states, each house is allowed to determine the rules of its proceedings, which means this committee is technically constitutional. But it still seems unconstitutional. In effect, it’s created a congress within Congress, above our regularly elected representatives. As Paul aptly put it, “It smells.”

Regardless of its legality, the implications of the panel’s authority can be dire. We all learned in our social studies classes that we have a representative democracy. In the interest of logistics, we elect representatives, who then reason amongst themselves to reach a conclusion. We’re allowed to see this reasoning, either in documents or on television or during open dialogue. If Congress was successfully able to create this committee under the pretext of “emergency,” what else are they capable of?

I understand that national debt is a serious issue. But because the constitution allows the creation of similar committees for any sort of issue, we should be concerned about the lack of checks and balances they entail. If this committee teaches us anything, it’s that the Constitution was meant to be fluid. Amendments can and should be implemented to address these issues.

The committee’s proposal is due by Nov. 23, the Thanksgiving holiday — a perfect way, it seems, to rush a decision: Someone must tend to the turkey. But a plea in the interest of time does not justify rushing a bill. There’s simply too much at stake. If a doctor were to rush through a surgery without consultation from his colleagues, it would be headline news. We should expect the same level of diligence and care from our representatives and government. We should be allowed to scrutinize our own government at all times.

It’s obvious that the nature of this committee and its operations are deliberate. Congress wants to fix a big, complicated problem with simple, fast solutions. But open discussion is essential. Congress should be allowed to bring the new bill to the floor and discuss it, amend it and argue over it, all in view of the public. This is democracy.