A quick look at the sunset commission proposal in title IV, subtitle B of the “Stop Over Spending Act of 2006,” S. 3521, introduced by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and reported out of the Senate Budget Committee. Basic Concept As with the proposals previously introduced in the House, this part of the Gregg bill would create an unelected commission empowered to sit in judgment over all federal programs, recommend which programs live, die, or get realigned, and then force those recommendations through Congress on a fast-track, take-it-or-leave-it basis with very limited debate, no opportunity for amendment, and no filibuster in the Senate. Not So Bipartisan: Composition of the Commission The commission consists of 15 members. While six of the members are chosen by majority leadership and six by minority leadership in Congress, the last three are chosen by the president, creating a commission lopsided towards the president’s party. Politics Over Expertise: Assessment of Federal Programs Already dominated by the president’s party, the commission would follow the lead of the White House when reviewing programs. The bill gives the president the authority to develop the method for determining the effectiveness of federal agency programs, based on “common performance measures.” This language would essentially codify the White House’s performance appraisal system, PART (Program Assessment Rating Tool) — a distorted process which the White House uses to justify making program budget cuts that are actually driven by political and ideological agendas. Based on these biased evaluations, the commission would then have to somehow duplicate the expertise of 21 Senate committees, 24 House committees, six joint committees, and countless subcommittees — in other words, the expertise that elected members of Congress develop in the committees of jurisdiction. Live, Die, or Change: Recommendations for Elimination or Realignment Once the president has determined the performance measures and methodology, the commission will make recommendations of agencies and programs to be “realigned or eliminated,” evaluating a quarter of the programs each year over four years based on whether the programs are considered to be “duplicative,” “wasteful or inefficient,” or “outdated, irrelevant, or failed.” The criteria sound like good government, but the devil is in the details. The definitions of these criteria are vague and expansive. Programs are considered to be duplicative if they serve the same function, even if the methods for doing so or the target population are completely different. Programs are considered to be “wasteful or inefficient” if they “benefit a special interest group,” but the term could imply an underserved community with special needs. Sunsets and Darkness: Lack of Public Participation or Transparency Though the commission would have the authority to hold public hearings, the bill does not require the commission to take any input from the public or to have open deliberations. Someone running a domestic violence shelter, for example, could wake up one morning to learn that the federal program funding the shelter was put on the chopping block and simply cut, and would then have no way to advocate for saving the program. The Un-Democratic Approach to “Good Government”: Fast Track, Take-It-or-Leave-It Vote The commission’s recommendations would be forced through Congress under fast-track procedures, with no ability for amendments and limited debate of only 10 hours. Congress would effectively be muzzled on important questions about the very structure and function of all government. The One Good Thing: Termination of Commission In all the bad ideas of this bill, one good idea was thrown in: the commission would itself face a sunset, with its termination coming 90 days after the final evaluation. It Doesn’t Matter How Important a Program Is: No Exemptions Unlike the Tiahrt and Brownback bills it is modeled on, the sunset commission proposal in Sen. Gregg’s bill allows no exemptions for the Department of Defense or entitlement programs.