No, I'm just kidding. In fact, according to a Congressional Quarterly (subscription) article published yesterday, it looks like expected Republican congressional electoral gains this fall may completely gridlock what are already complicated negotiations within the commission over addressing our nation's problematic mid- to long-term fiscal issues.

Yesterday afternoon, shortly after the fiscal commission adjourned their last hearing before the November mid-term elections, co-chair Erskine Bowles urged those members of the commission who hold elected political office – which accounts for 12 of the 18 members – to "set some of those parochial interests aside" when voting for recommendations next month.

Commission members would be wise to heed Bowles' proposition if they hope to come up with any worthwhile proposals. For any recommendation to make it into the final report the commission puts out in December, 14 of the 18 members have to agree to it.

Republican gains in Congress could lessen the chances of that happening:

A Republican takeover of the House or Senate would likely embolden Republican members when the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility reconvenes in December, lawmakers and analysts concluded. The Republicans could conclude that they have increased leverage in shaping the panel’s recommendations.

...

On the other hand, major gains in November could make Republicans on the commission less willing to cut bipartisan deals, some observers said. GOP leaders might discourage agreement, reasoning that any proposals to emerge from the commission would be considered during the post-election session of the 111th Congress with Democrats holding their current substantial House and Senate majorities.

Add that prognostication to what some panel members are describing as current Republican intransigence on any tax increases to raise revenue, and we'll likely have a final commission report that recommends trimming around the edges of fiscal problems rather than addressing the systemic issues within our federal budget.

Color me cynical, but at this point I'll just be happy if the commission doesn't produce any proposals that recommend cutting Social Security benefits for future generations.

Image by Flickr user johnsolid used under a Creative Commons license.

As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continues to hold hearings across the country on its proposal to regulate coal ash, a toxic by-product of coal combustion that contains lead, arsenic, and other toxics, industry representatives continue to make excuses and concoct ridiculous arguments for why coal ash regulation isn’t necessary.

One of the most oft-repeated claims is that coal ash regulation will “stigmatize” coal ash and prevent industries from repurposing it into other products. Coal ash is frequently reused as a component in other products including cement and wallboard.

At yesterday’s hearing in Louisville, KY, the stigma argument came up again. Power giant Duke Energy perpetuated it, and threatened rate increases for its customers if strict coal ash regulation goes into effect. Others implied it would destroy the market for reuse, according to BNA news service (subscription). The argument came up at a hearing in Pittsburgh last week, when a Pennsylvania Power and Light spokesman said, “[R]egulations would severely limit and most likely eliminate beneficial uses…” [Emphasis added.]

Is it possible that these industry folks haven’t bothered to read EPA’s proposal? I’ll help them out, by pulling some key passages:

• “EPA is not proposing to affect the current status of coal combustion residuals [or coal ash] that are beneficially used.”
• “EPA is not proposing to change the May 2000 Regulatory Determination for beneficially used CCRs, which are currently exempt from the hazardous waste regulations…”
• “EPA does not wish to inhibit or eliminate the significant and measurable environmental and economic benefits derived from the use of this valuable material without a demonstration of an environmental or health threat.” 

Industry representatives are fear mongering. Their comments are intended not to provide honest analysis of regulatory impacts but to mislead the public into thinking that strict coal ash regulation will have unintended consequences. They don’t want coal ash regulation because it will force them to take extra precautions when handling ash, not because it will restrict reuse.

Limiting reuse is clearly not EPA’s goal. The agency wants to protect public health (which, by the way, is its mission) by preventing the toxics found in coal ash from contaminating drinking water, and that’s exactly what it should do.

It's been an exciting few weeks on the Hill, with President Obama's OMB director nominee sitting before two Senate hearings before being blocked by a Democrat, House Republicans released their Pledge to America, and an effort to extendthe Bush tax cuts failed to move in the Senate. With all this excitement, I guess congressional appropriators couldn't find much time to work on their appropriations bills. In fact, the House Appropriations Committee made exactly zero progress on the fiscal year 2011 budget, meaning we're still waiting on the full committee to vote on ten appropriations bills. The Senate hasn't been much better, with its appropriations committee only approving two bills, and no floor votes. Which, as recent congressional witness Stephen Colbert might say, brings us to today's word: continuing resolution.

[You can also access the document here.]

One reason for the lack of appropriations activity is that, for the past few weeks, Democratic leadership has been working on a continuing resolution, which is essentially a motion to temporarily fund the government, usually mimicking the previous fiscal year's funding levels. These resolutions are used whenever Congress doesn't meet the October 1 deadline, which is when the new fiscal year starts. And considering October 1 is only one week away and Congress has passed zero appropriations bills, there is no chance, literally none whatsoever, that Congress will be able to vote through a budget in time. Therefore, it'll need to approve a continuing resolution sometime next week. If Congress fails to do so, the federal government will shut down, a situation some on the Hill have been talking about.

The key questions on the resolution will be how long it spans and how controversial its provisions are. The White House requested about $20 billion worth of additional spending items (including a small amount of school funding, Postal Service assistance, and Pell Grant funding), a move congressional Republicans objected to. A longer-term resolution would most likely face similar Republican ire, as it is easier to fit in additional spending on longer, more expensive bills.

Since there is little room for failure (the House won't be back for votes until Wednesday, the day before the last day in the fiscal year), it seems congressional Democrats are leaning towards a shorter, more narrowly focused continuing resolution. Late today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) filed for cloture on what will likely be the continuing resolution, setting up a possible Tuesday Senate vote. A Congressional Quarterly article on Reid's actions cited Democrats as saying that the resolution will probably be "clean," or devoid of add-ons. Although, since Congress has yet to pass a single appropriations bill, it will likely need quite a few continuing resolutions to give itself enough time to finish the 2011 budget cycle.

All in all, this is shaping up to be the worst appropriations cycle we've seen in years. I think now the most likely outcome is one giant omnibus bill containing most (if not all) of the year's appropriations bills.

In their newly released, talking-point-heavy "Pledge to America," House Republicans say they are offering "a plan to stop out-of-control spending and reduce the size of government" if voters put them back in charge in November. One area of government the plan doesn't call for reducing, however, is the Department of Defense (DOD). In fact, the new conservative governing proposal explicitly exempts the DOD budget from their proposed cuts to bring federal spending back to "pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels."

This will not only entail massive cuts to other areas of discretionary spending, but it completely leaves the task of reforming a bloated DOD budget that, as Gordon Adams at Capital Gains and Games puts it, "has run rampant over the past decade, spurred by two invasions and occupations."

To the first issue, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Pledge's call for cuts to non-security discretionary spending, which mirrors a recent proposal by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), would reduce many government programs by 21 percent. These cuts would have drastic effects on basic services like education and transportation, and would likely cripple vital public protections like food and water safety.

As OMB Watch Executive Director Gary Bass wrote this afternoon in the Huffington Post:

Paired with their deficit-bloating tax cut ideas are massive spending cuts intended to "starve the beast" or "drown government in a bathtub." While this manifesto's rhetoric may cater to the far right, it certainly does not provide a meaningful solution to long-term structural deficits.

...

Instead, they focus on the smallest part of the budget problem - discretionary spending. There are numerous promises to cut non-defense spending, freeze non-security hires in the government, and sunset government programs. Showing some compassion (or reaction to poll-tested warnings), they may not cut programs serving "seniors, veterans, and our troops," but there are no protections for others hit hard by the economy, such as those without jobs.

On the second issue, defending the inertial growth of the defense budget as providing "our troops with the resources they need" is ridiculous. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has recently acknowledged that there is at least $100 billion worth of savings possible over the next five years. While he plans to plow those savings right back into the department, it's at least a start.

Moreover, as Adams points out, the defense budget needs scrutiny because we as a country need to decide what and how much we want our military to do in the future. Leaving it alone to further grow and morph in the name of providing a robust defense is just scary.

Image by Flickr user TalkMediaNews used under a Creative Commons license.