It’s come to some people’s attention that in this Congress, the Senate Budget Committee has been focusing more on climate change than on the budget. Apparently, under Democratic leadership, the committee this session has held a total of 29 hearings, 15 of which were on climate and just three of which were on the budget. (I testified before the committee late last year during a hearing on reducing income inequality, and saw firsthand the lack of interest about our fiscal path.)
Apparently, the Republican members of the committee complained enough about this dereliction of duty that the chairman, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), decided to send Republican members on the committee a letter explaining why:
When at least $10 trillion of our national debt stems from two exogenous shocks to the economy — namely, the 2008 Financial Crisis and Covid — it would be folly for this Committee not to focus attention on dangers that portend the biggest systemic shock to the economy yet. Climate change alarm bells for the economy are being rung by economists, central bankers, financial experts, insurance and mortgage industry leaders, and many others.
Learning from the impact that these two emergencies had on the debt and on inflation in the case of Covid, you would think that the committee’s climate-change-budget hearings would be geared toward figuring out the ways to put the government on sound fiscal grounds to better enable the country to handle yet another emergency.
Unfortunately, that’s not what these hearings were about. Instead, each hearing explored a different aspect of the impact of climate change on various sectors of the U.S. economy. For instance, the committee had hearings, the chairman noted in his letter, “on the healthcare costs associated with climate change,” and “climate-related costs to the agricultural sector,” and “on the risks of a carbon bubble,” and more. The chairman clearly finds these topics important. They don’t, however, seem to be topics appropriate for the Senate Budget Committee as framed. The best evidence that fiscal stability of the nation isn’t what the chairman believes should be the first priority of the committee as evidenced by the final words of his letter, where he gives his assurance that he remains “interested in finding a common path forward on reducing carbon pollution.”
Since then, nine Republican members of the committee, including ranking member Chuck Grassley and Senator Mike Crapo (R., Idaho) have responded with their own letter:
Our constituents deserve a Budget Committee that works diligently to find common ground on ways to put our nation on a sustainable fiscal path, rather than preening for the cameras. . . .
As we have said before, and will undoubtedly say again, it’s time for this committee to turn its attention to the grim fiscal picture of our skyrocketing debt and deficits…
After fifteen climate change hearings, we are fully aware of the testimony offered at these hearings. A seven page recap letter will not suddenly change our view that the Budget Committee should first and foremost focus on the budget. While other committees, such as the Environment and Public Works and Finance Committees, have primary jurisdiction over climate change policies, only the United States Senate Committee on the Budget is charged with drafting a budget. . . .
While the committee’s first hearing titled “Climate-Related Economic Risks and Their Costs to the Federal Budget and the Global Economy” presented a worthy opportunity to discuss potential widespread budgetary impacts, we were unaware of the climate obsession and jurisdictional abdication that would follow. Our fifteenth climate hearing titled “Recreation at Risk: The Nature of Climate Costs” was so stale that you failed to secure the attention of a single Democrat committee member long enough to ask a single question of any witness on the panel. [Emphasis added.]
The whole letter is a must-read. It concludes with the hopeful and appropriate message from committee members to the chairman:
We remain interested in finding a path forward to right our nation’s dire fiscal trajectory.
The most frustrating part of the committee’s climate hearings is that if Democrats truly believe the threat of a climate catastrophe is imminent and unavoidable, as I assume they do, why aren’t they preparing for this emergency by trimming the budget to make sure we are financially ready to address the threat? Repeating that the threat is coming doesn’t improve our ability to respond to the emergency if it ever materialize without bankrupting the country or without causing debilitating inflation.
Looking for the different ways to put the country on a sound fiscal path is what this committee’s hearings should be about. The chairman cares about climate change, so every hearing could start with, “We believe that the federal government will have to respond sooner than later to a climate-change emergency, and we need to be financially ready. In today’s hearing, we will explore how to do just that.” He could have hearings looking at how to reform the budget process, the potential impact on inflation of paying rising government interest payments with more debt and no fiscal adjustments, the diminishing fiscal space in the U.S., or the risk of fiscal dominance. I have many suggestions if the chairman is interested.