A few notes, some background, and even some opinion.
This seems to be a new spin on an old idea. Since the line item veto was deemed unconstitutional, both the legislature and the branch of the executive have been looking for ways to streamline the legislative process.
The Current Problem:
Our legislative structure demands coalition building by a bunch of people who's first priority is to stay in office. How is this done? By "Bringing Home the Bacon (pork)" as they say. And it's popular! BS you say? Hold on, look at the opinion polls: while the vast majority of Americans hate "Congress" they keep re-electing their own officials and the simple reason is that they are good to the constituency. Each individual legislator brings home the bacon, so to speak, and thus wins favor at a local level. This is pure hypocrisy by the American voter: nobody ever hates pork when it's building a new park in their own town.
So now you have what, 535 legislative members, each making sure they get their piece of the pie on every spending bill, each hesitant to cut spending on every turn when it's their pork on the chopping block. This leads to what is known as a "tragedy of the commons": benefits are internalized (cool shit for our state!) while costs are externalized (more debt for the federal government). The fact that you cannot reverse debt in the current system is frankly a given, it's like trying to run your B-16 in reverse firing order or something (sorry for the silly Honda comparison but this is Hondaswap dammit).
The Proposed "Super Congress" and arguments for it (based largely in utility):
As you will shortly see, I am not in favor of this idea, but from a utilitarian's viewpoint it does do several things well. The big question here is "how can we run the business of DC without 535 legislative members nickling and diming us to death at every turn?" As said previously, the first idea was the line item veto. The basic idea was that the President, upon signing a bill into law, could strike discretionary spending items, one at a time, to reduce spending. However, the Supreme Court (correctly in my view) found this to be unconstitutional and struck it down in Clinton v. City of New York. This was a pretty clear violation of the presentment clause (Art 1 Sec 7): whatever the president ultimately signed into law would not be what congress voted on and vice versa. The question has now become: "how else can we run the business of DC without 535 legislative members nickling and diming us to death at every turn?" Enter the Super Legislature...
To explain the benefits of this I will just add italicized text in with a quote from the article...
"...legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party."
-Instead of 535 legislatures we now have only 12, this simply reduces the cost of action regarding coalition building.
"Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote."
-By removing the ability of "ordinary lawmakers" to amend bills you will omit them from the pork process, again this simply reduces the coalition building burden from 51% of the House, then 51% of the Senate, to 7 people on the "super committee." In short, it does what it says it does: fast tracks legislation while reducing opportunities for pork.
Non-Constitutionally Based Problems:
This first and largest problem, if you are a statesman, is that your state might lose a LOT of saying power. This super legislature will still be comprised of people representing individual states, who will still have incentives to be re-elected, and will certainly introduce pork of their own into these fast tracked, unamendable bills. The obviously problem is that your state may very well be the odd man out and thus your tax dollars will be funneled into another states coffers...
Second, does this not just add another level onto the bureaucracy? And in doing so, does it not complicate the process it seeks to simplify? What if California (with 53 House seats) or Texas (with 32 House seats) came to be unrepresented in this new super committee at some point? Looking out for their own best interests, might they vote against a piece of "super legislation" which doesn't "cut them in?" If you cannot envision the "super congress" laying blame for an impasse on the "regular congress" than you simply have not been paying attention my friend, for these are the games we play.
Constitutional Arguments Against
Simply put, the Constitution does not allow for the creation of a higher chamber, period. One could argue "well it doesn't say we can't do it," and to those I would say simply: open a history book.
It is worth noting that the chief argument against a Bill of Rights was that the Constitution was to invest "enumerated powers." This means, quite simply, that the Federal Government did not have the power to do anything that was not specifically laid out for it in the Constitution. The largest fear among those who opposed a bill of rights was that, at some point, the government would begin to operate as if those rights were enumerated when in-fact they are actually plenary, unless stated otherwise (if I have lost you go back to watching Larry the Cable Guy). Finally, the creation of a "super legislature" simply goes beyond the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art 1 Sec 8).
What is to be Done? (opinion)
The big argument, by the GOP, is that if you raise taxes it will kill jobs. This is tried and true, hell even JFK lowered taxes during a recession! But it is different now and I will tell you why...
Taxes were traditionally lowered in times of economic stagnation so that businesses could create jobs to restore prosperity. If you haven't noticed, something very odd has occurred: the Dow is back above 12,000 yet unemployment is still hanging around 10%, that's odd isn't it? In fact, its the new norm and there are two reasons why:
First, production and service has simply been outsourced, where possible, to developing countries willing to earn pennies on the dollar.
Second, the advent of the "technological revolution" (similar to the industrial revolution) has created a marketplace which simply demands less labor.
So what you have now is higher unemployment and massive corporate profit without the need for traditional levels of American labor. But, to think keeping taxes low will create jobs in this new paradigm fundamentally misunderstands where we are in economic history. Consider for a moment all those shops that have closed since 2008: at what tax level, exactly, does it become a good idea to...
Open a movie rental store and compete with Redbox?
Open a book store and compete with Amazon and Kindle?
Open a Sam Goody and compete with iTunes?
There is no such tax figure, period...
The only solution I can come to, albeit imperfect, is this:
Raise Corporate and Capital Gains Tax: We are currently still under the "Bush tax cuts," a tax system designed to create jobs during a recession, and yet jobs are not being created. While Wall Street is back to high dividends, public schools still cannot afford their teachers. There is some amount of sacrifice which is simply required to move forward and that burden should be shared equally.
Impose Fair Practices on Entitlements: That means if you want unemployment you pass a drug test. Same thing for welfare, there is simply no longer enough money for everyone to do as they please and collect government money. If you need the support of the federal government to make ends meet that's fine, but we can no longer afford to enable those who would leverage enitlesments so they can indulge or buy an iPhone.
Impose Higher Tariffs on Foreign Goods: Want jobs in America? It's simple, make people buy American made products and services. This is done by raising the price of foreign products. While this will temporarily raise the cost of living, it is the best way to fight back against the intentional devaluation of currency going on in China to win the trade war. The best way to bring American jobs home is to make it too expensive to outsource them.
Balance the Budget: Has it ever struck you as funny that we spend more on defense than the next 20 countries combined to fight people in caves? If 2011 has proven anything its that Europe will pony up military assets the second their economic interests are at stake (Libyan oil anyone?). By cutting defense and discretionary spending we can stop borrowing money. This is key if we are to impose higher tariffs on foreign goods, as the countries we are borrowing from are the same countries who are taking our labor (cough CHINA cough). This is a critical piece of the puzzle.
