With partisan gridlock appearing to hold up action on our biggest problems, bipartisan compromise is often cheered by the media and the public.

Yet in many cases, bipartisan agreement is reached by putting forward a proposal that looks good at first blush, but actually accomplishes little. The report from the Legislature's Prosperity Committee is a good example of this phenomenon.

The Prosperity Committee was created in response to "Charting Maine's Future," a 2006 report from GrowSmart Maine and the Brookings Institution that analyzed Maine's current condition and made recommendations for promoting sustainable prosperity and protecting quality places.

The Prosperity Committee was made up of 7 Democrats, 7 Republicans, 1 Independent, and 1 tribal representative and was directed "to develop a comprehensive plan to achieve sustainable prosperity in the State."

The Prosperity Committee issued a unanimous report -- an example of the bipartisan compromise that is so desired. But if you dig into the report you find it is full of general recommendations and calls for other committees to take action. One of the few concrete items in the report is the creation of a nine-member Maine Government Efficiency Commission which would be charged with recommending $75 million in spending cuts. The recommendations would be sent to the Legislature for an up-or-down-vote in January 2009. But there is even less to this recommendation than there appears.

The idea of an Efficiency Commission was part of the Brookings report. The Commission was modeled on the federal Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) which recommended military bases for closing. The BRAC process required Congress to vote up or down on the whole package. It was the BRAC process that caused the closing of Loring Air Force Base and the impending closure of the Brunswick Naval Air Station.

It is odd that Maine would embrace a process based on one that resulted in so much pain for the state, but GrowSmart Maine's Alan Caron says the up-or-down-vote "is to find a new way to move forward that moves out of the partisan debate and toward something that might be a common ground approach to streamlining government."

But the scope of the Efficiency Commission is limited. The Commission is to find $75 million in spending reductions through "consolidation, elimination of duplication, increases in efficiency or by other means" but not "reduction in services or programs." As a result, the Commission could not look at changing eligibility standards for MaineCare or other welfare programs -- meaning vast areas of State spending are off-limits when looking for savings.

The idea of an up-or-down-vote was altered by the Prosperity Committee. Instead of considering the Commission's recommendations as a whole, the Legislature may consider "revenue-neutral amendments" to the proposal. Exactly what that means is not spelled out in the report, but I assume it means that the Legislature can replace spending reductions proposed by the Commission with reductions of its own as long as the total amount of the package does not change.

All of this ignores the fact that the idea that an up-or-down-vote on the package would be required is a fraud.

One Legislature can't bind the next and a statute requiring an up-or-down-vote is not binding upon the Legislature. Including the requirement for an up-or-down-vote is a cynical political maneuver to make it appear a tough stand is being taken when nothing is actually being done.

To his credit, GrowSmart's Caron admits that the Legislature can't be legally required to take an up-or-down-vote. He says the key is for the leaders of both parties to support or reject the package of proposals as a whole and that will lead to the full Legislature acting with integrity and taking an up-or-down-vote. However, many of the current leaders of the Legislature, including the Senate president and the House speaker, will not be in the Legislature in 2009 when the Commission's recommendations are presented.

The Prosperity Committee's proposals will be debated during the next few weeks. When its proponents talk about the groundbreaking nature of its recommendations, remember that there is much less there than claimed.

There are no short cuts to making hard choices. The current Legislature appears inclined to put hard choices off to a Commission, and ultimately to the next Legislature. The choices will be no different, or no easier, in January 2009 than they are in January 2008. But maybe we will elect a new group of people in November more capable of making those choices.

Dan Billings is a Republican activist and commentator. He practices law in Waterville. He can be reached at dib9@aol.com.