Pelosi's Paradox: Can today's Congress tell tomorrow's Congress what to do? No. Maybe. Sort of.

by Christopher Beam

Slate
July 14, 2010

In the debate over how to reduce the deficit—should we cut spending or raise taxes? should we do it now or later?—economists say we should spend now and save later. This is partly Economics 101: We're still in a recession, so let's stimulate our way out of it before turning to fiscal austerity. But it's also a convenient way to put off hard choices. Regardless of whoever pays the economic price for deficit reduction, the consensus seems to be that future Congresses should pay the political price.

Indeed, many of the biggest pieces of legislation facing Congress put off political pain. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—otherwise known as health care reform—pays for itself with an excise tax on "Cadillac" insurance plans that doesn't kick in until 2018.* Financial regulatory reform would put a consumer financial protection agency in place right away, but the panel wouldn't reach full strength until 2020. Immigration reform, meanwhile, would require illegal immigrants to wait another eight years before they could apply for permanent residency.

In other words, each bill contains provisions that will be implemented sometime in the future—not by Congress, necessarily, but by the executive branch. But these policies will require enough continued congressional support that no future Congress tries to reverse them.

More