The Simulation

The basic format of the simulation is to have each student assigned the role of a member of Congress, decide on a package of deficit reducing measures, and then come to agreement with other members of Congress.

The deficit reduction simulation can be scheduled any time after the first few weeks of the semester; I typically conduct it toward the middle of the term. In the first week of the semester the class discusses the basic outline of the deficit reduction simulation so that students can start thinking about which member of Congress they might like to portray. They are told in class a week before that they will be assigned their roles. They may come to that class with a specific member (or two) they would like to portray (coin flips break ties), or if unsure as to whom they would like to represent, which political party they prefer. Some come with no preference.

I then assign roles in a manner that ensures a body roughly representative of the partisan split in the U.S. Congress at the time and with some geographic diversity. I try to be sure to get representatives from states like Florida and Arizona, for example, where a large number of senior citizens can influence policy options, as well as areas with military installations, urban populations, agricultural interests, etc.

After assigning the roles, I pass out specific instructions for the deficit reduction simulation (Exhibit A). At the end of that same class, the students are divided into their respective caucuses for 15–20 minutes to discuss the general philosophy of their party's caucus to help guide preparation of their individual packages. They are also encouraged at this stage to elect a caucus leader and assistant, as well as a secretary to keep track of options rejected and agreed upon.

The size of the caucuses as well as the overall composition of the Congress varies by class size. The best class size to work with is one of about 40 students. In this case, the class would be divided into four caucuses representative of the current Congress: Republican Senate (11), Democratic Senate (9), Republican House (11), and Democratic House (9), for example. I find that the best size for each of the caucuses is between seven and 12. Anything smaller does not allow for enough diversity of interest, and if any larger some students find it difficult to participate. Thus in a small class, say of 20, I would just have two caucuses, both representing members of the U.S. Senate.

The students are then given two to three weeks to research their member of Congress. At the start of that period I discuss in class the influences on voting for members of Congress. Thus, as Exhibit A suggests, they are told to research the constituency, policy positions, committee assignments (especially chairmanships), interest group ratings, campaign contributors, and voting record of their senator or representative.

They must use the Almanac of American Politics and Politics in America to gather information, and have to turn in to me at the start of the simulation a photocopy from either source of the basic information on their member of Congress. This allows me to better judge the student's portrayal. I also ask that they not hoard these volumes, which are usually kept in reference areas of the library. They may also research such sites as Project Votesmart, the Center for Responsive Politics, and the web sites of the members of Congress to find policy positions. I also ask them to write a brief one-page summary to post on Blackboard so that all students can become familiar with the participants.

While researching their roles, I suggest that they should peruse the deficit reduction options that they will consider, so that they may begin evaluating these policy choices from the perspective of their member of Congress. In my budgeting class, I often require that they read a book during this period about previous efforts to reduce the deficit, such as George Hager and Eric Pianin's Balancing Act (1998) or Daniel Palazzolo's Done Deal? (1999)

The deficit reduction options given to them are the most recent available from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO has put out a report on budget options on a fairly regular basis, most recently in February of 2005, and anticipates publishing them every two years going forward. These reports are available in print version for free, or at http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4066&sequence=0. Even a report two or three years old provides meaningful options, as budgetary savings and revenue gains are usually projected over five fiscal years.

Each option is given about one page in the CBO report, and offers the pros and cons of that particular strategy. (See Exhibit B for the functional categories for options in 2003, Exhibit C for a sample of some of the options available, and Exhibit D for an example of the discussion of an option.) There are far too many options in these reports for the class to consider, so I usually try to pick 50–60. I customarily photocopy these pages and put them in a reading packet.

Choosing the options to be made available to the students is an important part of the preparation for the simulation. I generally offer deficit reduction options that total three to four times the amount of deficit reduction called for in the simulation. Thus, if the deficit reduction goal is $35 billion, I will give them over $140 billion in options. I try to get some dollar balance in terms of total savings available in defense and non-defense domestic spending, roughly a similar amount in health care options, and several revenue options, particularly those that don't raise a disproportionate amount of revenue.

As many of the revenue raising options presented by CBO involve substantial amounts, I further limit the amount of the final deficit reduction package that may come from taxes, often to roughly 50% of the goal, to dissuade the students from seeking a quick fix to the deficit problem. I also try to include some of the more salient options, such as canceling the Space Station, eliminating the subsidy for Amtrak, and raising tobacco and motor vehicle fuels taxes.

The students are told to review all of the options and to divide each into “acceptable,” “possible,” and “absolutely unacceptable” from the position of their member of Congress. Occasionally, they have to be reminded that what their member of Congress would accept might not coincide with the student's own personal views. They are also given a list of which member of Congress each member of the class is portraying, and they can use the information posted on Blackboard to understand the perspectives that they are likely to face in negotiations.

I also tell the members of the minority party in the Senate that they can use three to four “filibusters.” This is necessary to keep the majority party from pushing through its agenda. The existence of filibusters also makes strategizing more interesting for both parties. Filibusters can not be used by individual members of the minority Senate caucus; the group must approve.

I usually set aside four 100-minute class sessions for the simulation, but it is flexible in that it can be run in less or more time. On the first day, each caucus meets to review the options that its caucus can agree on, but it is the task of the majority party in each house to present the first list of options.

I have students place placards in front of them with the name and state/district of their member of Congress. On the first day of deliberations, each student also takes one minute to summarize their background, constituency, and committee assignments. I encourage them to later begin their remarks by repeating information about themselves, saying, for example, “As Senator X from Y, and chair of the Z committee, I feel … .”

The discussions in these caucuses are enlightening to the students. They generally have already had difficulty deciding by themselves which government programs to cut and revenues to raise; now they have to find agreement with other members of their same party. They soon find that while fellow Democrats or Republicans may have many things in common, the more specific the decisions become, the more points of demarcation there are. Tip O'Neil's observation that “all politics are local” soon becomes very real. The students are encouraged to reach agreement by consensus, but I suggest that the caucus take a vote when there is uncertainty as to its position, or to increase efficiency.

Toward the end of the first class I have the majority party in each house put up on the board their first list of options. This list is sometimes a true representation of what the caucus wants, but sometimes students strategize and offer alternatives that they know will be rejected, so that they can use that outcome in later bargaining and negotiation. The students can either place the options on a black or whiteboard, use an overhead, or PowerPoint. Before that first class session ends, the minority party in each house must caucus and decide which, if any, of the majority package they can agree to.

I ask for the areas where there is agreement. This is usually done by consensus; no individual votes are taken at this point unless someone requests one. Almost always early agreement is only reached on two or three of the 15 or so proposals put forward. This result reinforces the difficulty of coming to agreement on reducing the deficit.

It is important to note that students often communicate and/or meet on their own during the interval between classes. The Blackboard site lets them email their individual caucuses.

The second session begins with the minority party reconvening to finalize its first (counter) proposal in light of what the majority party has offered. After a brief period, the minority party presents their options to the other side of the aisle. The majority party then caucuses to determine which, if any, of the options they can accept. They also discuss strategy and back-up options, now that they know the tendencies of the other party. The minority party caucus similarly discusses strategies and options where compromise might be attained. After 30–45 minutes the majority party in each house must report the options that have been agreed to.

Invariably at this stage there is agreement on less than 20% of the amount needed. The caucuses are then directed to reconvene to find options that they feel would lead to agreement. They are also encouraged at this stage to start putting together deals—quid pro quo agreements on deficit reduction options.

I should note that the instructor has a very limited role during the simulation, as the caucuses really take on a life of their own. The instructor observes, asks for areas of agreement, appoints conferees, and answers process questions. The instructor's main task is to pressure the caucuses to come to some agreement both among its own members and with the other party.

At this stage, direct communication between the two caucuses in each house begins. Occasionally a member or two of one party will bolt from their party's position and ask for a vote of the entire house to gain approval or rejection of an option that they feel strongly about. This is more likely to happen in the latter stages of the simulation.

With little progress accomplished by the start of the third class, I often make an idle threat to lower everyone's grade by one letter if they do not reach agreement in the allotted time. Once again they return to their caucuses to search for areas of compromise. Halfway through the third class, progress is still usually slow, partly due to the group dynamic. At this point, I ask each caucus to designate two or three representatives to meet with a similar group from the other party to try to work out an agreement.

This often produces a tentative agreement, teaching the students the efficiency of a more focused negotiation. At the end of the third class, the negotiators report back to their caucuses and discuss the agreement, with votes taken at the start of the fourth class.

The fourth class begins with votes in each house on the negotiated package. Again, it is never accepted in its entirety, and more negotiations ensue. Reminded of the threatened shared loss of grade, the students begin to “hold their noses” and vote for less-than-perfect packages in order to get agreement. Since each house now has to approve the package, a vote is taken on each item. Individuals often cross party lines.

When a package has been agreed upon in each house, conference committee negotiators are appointed, and a tentative package is agreed to, reconciling the House and Senate versions of the deficit reduction package. Each house must then approve the conference committee compromise.

I have in the past conducted the simulation with someone assigned the role of president, with the task of preparing the first deficit reduction package and having the power of veto. I have found, however, that this makes the exercise flow less smoothly, and the student in the role of president has little to do during much of the simulation. Further, most of the members of Congress then do not begin their work in earnest until after the president has presented a package. Still, this is an option.

There are several ways to shorten the amount of classroom time used for the simulation, something I have done for an introductory American Government course. The students can be given fewer options (10–20) and a lower deficit reduction target. They can also be encouraged or required to do more group work outside of scheduled class time, through meetings at the library and/or use of Blackboard or standard email.

For a two-class-session simulation, the students should be expected to come to an agreement within their own caucus by the end of the first class, and use the second class to negotiate an agreement with the other party caucus. The attempt to reach an agreement between the two houses of Congress can be replaced by a brief discussion comparing and contrasting the packages that emerge from each.

I cannot emphasize enough how much the students enjoy the simulation. I often see them after class or elsewhere on campus engaged in heated discussions over deficit reduction options. In class sessions following the simulation, students will often refer back to the simulation, and sometimes jokingly refer to their classmates by the name of the member of Congress that they represented. On the course evaluations almost all of the replies to open-ended questions praise the simulation. Some have even suggested that it be turned into a semester-long course, much like Model UN or Model Arab League.

Nonetheless, to ensure that students participate fully, I warn them that at any time I may ask them to produce a sheet of paper with the options that they have selected as their member of Congress. I also allocate 20% of their final grade to participation in the simulation. To help gauge their participation, I move from one caucus to another, taking notes on student involvement. I also give them a short surprise quiz at the very end of the simulation, which asks them to list the two agreed upon deficit reduction options that were easiest for their member to accept, and the two that were hardest. Finally, I usually ask a question on the final exam referring back to the simulation, often asking them for the pros and cons of two or three of the options that were presented to them.

This simulation accomplishes several purposes while providing experiential education without ever leaving the classroom. It obviously increases student participation and ownership of the class. Some students who are not good “testers” are able to improve their grade through very active participation. The simulation also teaches students how to work in groups, and helps them develop skills in negotiation and compromise. These are valuable lessons that students can take to the workplace. Students also develop a greater respect for the difficult challenges faced by elected officials. Finally, they rather painlessly learn the pros and cons of quite a few policy options along the way.