Super Committee about to be a super failure?

posted at 2:30 pm on November 20, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

With the Washington Post reporting – and Senator Jon Kyl confirming – that there’s a general sense of malaise surrounding budget deal negotiations, the end may be in sight. Unfortunately, the light at the end of the tunnel is looking more and more like it’s the headlight of an oncoming train.

The congressional committee tasked with reducing the federal deficit is poised to admit defeat as soon as Monday, and its unfinished business will set up a year-end battle over emergency jobless benefits and an expiring payroll tax holiday.

Those provisions are among a host of measures set to lapse at the end of December. During nearly three months of negotiations, the “supercommittee” had been weighing whether to extend at least some of them as part of a broader plan to shave a minimum of $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

The mere fact of failure, should it occur, probably won’t come as a shock to most observers. (Our friends at Outside the Beltway, in fact, rather blandly call it “An Unsurprising Failure.”) But from all of these interviews and a sampling of the talking heads this weekend, what was more startling to me was an indication that a lot of these folks really never wanted the committee to succeed in the first place. But why? A few observations follow.

From the Left side of the aisle, there does seem to be one possible answer which led me to one of those forehead slapping, “I coulda’ had a V-8″ moments. I was watching a panel of entirely left wing pundits on MSNBC this morning, two of whom came out without prevarication and said they were openly hoping the group would fail to meet the deadline. The reason? Because then the sequestration would kick in and it leaves entitlement programs essentially untouched while making deep cuts in the military. And as one noted, such cuts to the military are, “long overdue.” Further, they pointed out that failure would result in the end of the Bush era tax cuts which, as one of them put it, “would solve most of our problems right there.”

I’ve long since gotten over being shocked at hearing things like this, and in some ways it was rather refreshing to hear it stated so openly and honestly. Of course, it’s also disastrously wrong as far as I can tell, but at least it’s honest.

But there have been plenty on the Right who have adopted a hang dog attitude about the work the committee is attempting as well. The general consensus seems to be that if there were to be a deal, in order to get any of the Democrats on board it was going to involve massive tax increases. Better to give up and head to sequester rather than give in on that, goes this line of thinking.

But was the entire thing a dog and pony show with no real effect except for 2012 political positioning? The other chatter, including some of the comments from John Kerry, is that none of the threatened “draconian cuts” from the original deal will happen anyway. Remember… they don’t take place until 2013. And at least according to some, that gives Congress an entire year to get together and repeal that decision. And if that happens, you may wind up with tax cuts expiring, no measurable cuts in spending, and no significant change in course in terms of basic government theory. Game.. set.. match.

So.. was this all just for show?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

So.. was this all just for show?

No kidding.

This is why they should have shut down the government, and why the GOP leadership wanted no part of that. The GOP is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

sharrukin on November 20, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Just another talking point for dear leader to bash gop

cmsinaz on November 20, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Taxes will increase and the military will decrease
Dems win

Thanks gop elite

cmsinaz on November 20, 2011 at 2:37 PM

What I read is that the Dems want the Bush tax cuts to end and the GOP is against that. The democrats hope to scream murder while holding the knife behind their backs.

William Amos on November 20, 2011 at 2:37 PM

You really expect anything John F’n Kerry (AKA “the worthless tw@t”) is involved in will actually do anything other than fail????

ScottG on November 20, 2011 at 2:39 PM

about? Ahhhh when was it ever anything but a failure?

upinak on November 20, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Thank you Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul for opposing this nonsense in the first place. Shame on anyone associated with this travesty.

JohnGalt23 on November 20, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Really, I’m shocked, shocked I tell you. What about our government hasn’t been a super failure in the last 3 or more years?

boomer on November 20, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Yes.

drewwerd on November 20, 2011 at 2:44 PM

If they had really wanted real cuts now, they could have just not raised the debt ceiling.

cthulhu on November 20, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Seriously now, who expected them do something? I sure didn’t.

ButterflyDragon on November 20, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Are the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Credit, or at least their current levels, considered parts of the Bush Tax Cuts? Honest question. Because if so…then I’m up for at least a partial cessation of those cuts. I say that as a father of 6 who pays at most 3-4% tax on my gross income (not adjusted) every year due to the CTC.

TexasDan on November 20, 2011 at 2:49 PM

They’re just bein lazy… and droppin their ‘g’s…
-

RalphyBoy on November 20, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Balls on both houses.

Not for staking positons but tell me, anyone, please, just when have they met, how long have they sat down to hammer something out?
Where are the meeting notes of our public officials conducting public business?

Balls on both houses.

Limerick on November 20, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Sounds like mission accompanied to me.

Tommy_G on November 20, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Lazy a$$es.

scalleywag on November 20, 2011 at 3:02 PM

$1.2 trillion in “cuts”

….over TEN YEARS.

$120 BILLION A YEAR on deficit spending of $1.5 TRILLION A YEAR.

THIS has been a game from the very beginning. If you’re a big gov loving Progressive a loss on the Super Congress is a WIN.

THIS is what the ratings agencies are going to tell us IF THE GOP DOESN’T CAVE.

PappyD61 on November 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Are the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Credit, or at least their current levels, considered parts of the Bush Tax Cuts? Honest question. Because if so…then I’m up for at least a partial cessation of those cuts. I say that as a father of 6 who pays at most 3-4% tax on my gross income (not adjusted) every year due to the CTC.

TexasDan on November 20, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Not exactly, but overall US tax receipts remain at historic lows. If you’re going to get tax revenue back to 2000 levels, overall rates need to go up by 1 to 2%.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gundlach-presentation-dollars-cents-2011-9#-8
http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-americans-dont-pay-tax-2011-8

bayam on November 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM

And where has Mr. President been in all this? Campaigning and whining about his jobs bill that neither party wants to pass. The whole world is watching this pitiful display of feckless leadership.

scalleywag on November 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM

The Republicans tried their best but the Democrats were and remain unwavering in their attempt to protect social programs at all costs. This is what the conflict is really about and the Democrats are not going to give unless they receive real tax increases.

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 3:06 PM

As soon as McConnell, Boehner and Cantor said they would not let the US default, the Dems won.

The Dems knew the debt limit would be increased, and the fake super committee wouldn’t work because the GOP would not raise taxes and entitlements were off the table.

Wethal on November 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM

bayam on November 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Business Insider is the Politico of the financial world.

Wethal on November 20, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Further, they pointed out that failure would result in the end of the Bush era tax cuts which, as one of them put it, “would solve most of our problems right there.”

Should that happen, and the problems aren’t “solved”, what then? Can we count on the intelligentsia at MSNBC jumping out the nearest window to atone for their rampant stupidity?

Out here in sunny Kalifornia, there appears to be (GASP!) a rather large whole in that previously passed Democratic budget. Seems some rather generous assumptions about tax revenue “failed to materialize”. But no worries, the budget got “passed” on time, so legislators didn’t have to worry about their pay being withheld.

And don’t worry about the pending $13 BILLION shortfall over the next two years. We’re gonna buy a $90 BILLION bullet train!

GarandFan on November 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM

The super committee is a great success. It is what Washington is best at. Posing and showmanship. That’s all it was ever going to be good for.

Snake307 on November 20, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Co-chair Patty Murray (D-WA):

“There is one sticking divide, and that is the issue of what I call shared sacrifice, where everybody contributes in a very challenging time for our country. And that’s the Bush tax cuts and making sure that any kind of package includes everybody coming to the table. And the wealthiest of Americans, those who earn over $1 million every year, have to share, too. And that line in the sand, we haven’t seen any Republicans willing to cross yet.”

Co-chair Jeb Hensarling (R-TX):

“We are unaware of any Democrat offer that didn’t include at least [a] $1 trillion tax increase on the American economy. It’s not a matter of blame; it’s a matter of fact.”

Jon Kyl (R-AZ):

“From the Democratic side, it was the same thing — raise taxes, pass the president’s jobs bill, no entitlement reform.”

/Politico

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Time for a SuperCommittee SuperCommittee!

Limerick on November 20, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Taxes will increase and the military will decrease
Dems win

Thanks gop elite

cmsinaz on November 20, 2011 at 2:37 PM

But they want to raise taxes to the tune of a $1trillion? Thats a ~33% increase over last year($2.2trillion?).

Where are we going to get another 33% ???

Perhaps we should simply seize Soros assets?

orbitalair on November 20, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Spending needs to come down to 2000 levels as well, Bayam. Fairs fair. And that’s a far bigger gap.

Chuck Schick on November 20, 2011 at 3:23 PM

I’m just going to repeat my headline post:

How the idiot Republicans got duped into this box, I’ll never understand. I suppose they saw it as an opportunity to blame someone else when the whole charade comes apart at the seams. It is not in anyone’s best interest for our elected officials to shirk their sworn duty and (illegally?) give away their constitutionally defined role.

Fail.

Yes, EPIC FAIL.

Fools and tools.

hillbillyjim on November 20, 2011 at 3:24 PM

No, this was a failure because the GOP betrayed the base and everything it claimed to represent during the 2010 elections.

Everyone saw this coming EXCEPT the leadership of the GOP, who once again succumbed to manufactured panic via a manufactured crisis.

The only real hope is God

The GOP will betray you

True_King on November 20, 2011 at 3:26 PM

There are no Chevy’s, no Oldsmobile, no Pontiac. There is only GM.

There are no Donks and Elephants. There is only “The Club”.

For all you it’s-fixable folks I worry.

Limerick on November 20, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Ah yes . . . don’t these jackasses make you proud to be an American?

rplat on November 20, 2011 at 3:32 PM

The GOP “leadership” was terrified of the Dems and MSM saying it was the GOP’s fault that the US was out of money and Grandma wouldn’t be getting her Social Security check.

Wethal on November 20, 2011 at 3:33 PM

In my fun imaginary world where we have a BBA, I think we need to cap the budget at the preceding year’s tax revenues.

TexasDan on November 20, 2011 at 3:35 PM

So.. was this all just for show?

um….not to be indelicate….but does a bear sh!t in the woods?

Tim_CA on November 20, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Pffft… as soon as the polls starting coming out, showing that the GOP would be blamed for failure, failure was the only option for the Dems.

reaganaut on November 20, 2011 at 3:44 PM

The entire republican party has not the spine of a single infantry soldier in all of Afghanistan.

bloviator on November 20, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Who didn’t see this coming?

Kini on November 20, 2011 at 3:47 PM

15 trillion and counting.
Congress is better thanever at rearranging the deck chairs

esblowfeld on November 20, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Spending needs to come down to 2000 levels as well, Bayam. Fairs fair. And that’s a far bigger gap.

Chuck Schick on November 20, 2011 at 3:23 PM

We have two political parties so philosophically alienated from each other that they cannot come to a simple agreement on spending cuts. As long as the Democrats have enough members to protect their precious welfare state, we will experience this same type of gridlock.

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 3:53 PM

What’s the surprise? the super committee is doing exactly what it’s designed to do raise taxes or nothing

mathewsjw on November 20, 2011 at 3:53 PM

The “Super Committee” was always designed to fail, which has the effect of abdicating legislative branch budget responsibility to Obama.

GOP = GULLIBLE Old Party

landlines on November 20, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Again, I hope you’re laying away some supplies, including ammo.

We know how this ends; there’s no chance these people will do what is necessary to avoid it.

Midas on November 20, 2011 at 3:56 PM

It was always designed to fail.

It was a re-election plan for Obama.

It was unconstitutional on its face.

It was designed to go nowhere.

………

Obama will continue to divide. He cannot lead, he has proven himself as incapable. He is an imbecile, a product of SEIU and the Shtcago machine. His aim is to do nothing other than either presided over, or orchestrate the fall of the United States.

The sooner we come to grips with this fact, the better.

Key West Reader on November 20, 2011 at 3:58 PM

It is a big winner for the ‘elite’ on both sides of the aisle.

Dems get a big win, R’s get the shaft and say ‘thank you’… all lovely 20th century politics.

Mind you its the 21st century and that stuff is old… worn out and threadbare. If the ‘elites’ are trying to get themselves kicked out, they are on their way to succeeding.

Primary every member who voted for the super-committee. Really screw ‘em up and get people to register in the opposite party so that those incumbents face primaries as well. Even a token primary means they will have to figure out if someone will actually be able to poach their seat from them.

Not just a new President.

It is time to start kicking the bums out and getting a new Congress.

ajacksonian on November 20, 2011 at 4:00 PM

What’s the surprise? the super committee is doing exactly what it’s designed to do raise taxes or nothing

mathewsjw on November 20, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Since when did the American People abdicate and refuidate their Representatives?

Never?

You’re right.

Obama did that. Because he thinks he can.

November 23, 2011.

Key West Reader on November 20, 2011 at 4:00 PM

We have two political parties so philosophically alienated from each other that they cannot come to a simple agreement on spending cuts.

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 3:53 PM

They always seem to agree on spending more money?

Debt ceiling got raised and they came together for that. Now we may have another debt ceiling increase, and would you bet the farm that they won’t increase that as well?

They just can’t agree to actually cut anything. The GOP has control of 100% of the purse strings and yet… nothing gets cut.

Its almost as if they do agree with each other, but the GOP has to pretend to disagree to keep their conservative base in line.

sharrukin on November 20, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Again, I hope you’re laying away some supplies, including ammo.

We know how this ends; there’s no chance these people will do what is necessary to avoid it.

Midas on November 20, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Foodstuffs and hard grains. Seeds. Bulbs. Water

Key West Reader on November 20, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Its almost as if they do agree with each other, but the GOP has to pretend to disagree to keep their conservative base in line.

sharrukin on November 20, 2011 at 4:01 PM

They are all in this together.

Key West Reader on November 20, 2011 at 4:03 PM

suckers…

equanimous on November 20, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Roll the the Bush tax cuts back?

OK, good enough.

If that’s the path, then we need to cap the budget, all of it, at 2003 spending levels.

Insist on looking backwards for the solution, then go all the way back…

hobbit on November 20, 2011 at 4:04 PM

They are all in this together.

Key West Reader on November 20, 2011 at 4:03 PM

There are some in the GOP who are honest, but most are not.

sharrukin on November 20, 2011 at 4:10 PM

This was a bad idea from the get go. It accepts the liberal premise that slowing the rate of growth is a “cut”. And its only 1.2 trillion over 10 years. That’s nothing when we’re talking trillions in debts and deficits annually. Republicans should walk away. Say the libs acted in bad faith, and slash the hell out of entitlements and social programs. Those are what’s killing us anyway.

Iblis on November 20, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Remind me again why we would want to put anyone who has ever been a member of the cesspool that is Congress, much less its leaader in charge of the Executive Branch?

txmomof6 on November 20, 2011 at 4:17 PM

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 3:53 PM

They always seem to agree on spending more money?

Debt ceiling got raised and they came together for that. Now we may have another debt ceiling increase, and would you bet the farm that they won’t increase that as well?

They just can’t agree to actually cut anything. The GOP has control of 100% of the purse strings and yet… nothing gets cut.

Its almost as if they do agree with each other, but the GOP has to pretend to disagree to keep their conservative base in line.

sharrukin on November 20, 2011 at 4:01 PM

The debt ceiling will need to increased until we cut and reform entitlements. We would have to write at minimum a $100T check to pay for our current obligations. Also, while the House controls the purse strings, every budget bill requires passage by the Senate and the signature of the president. So the House cannot make cuts on their own.

Further, I do not feel this failure to come to an agreement is theatre. Compare the Republican deficit plans to the primary Democratic one. Which party is attempting to solve the problem and which party would exacerbate it? No, the problem we have here is an ever-growing philosophical divide. Republicans and Democrats were able to come-together for the common good back when the Democrats still possessed some love for America. Now they (and some Republicans) are hell-bent on turning this nation into a European-style socialist state.

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 4:17 PM

The members of this Super Committee volunteered their own time to do this, right?

It’s not like they got payed for a total flop, right?

listens2glenn on November 20, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Also, while the House controls the purse strings, every budget bill requires passage by the Senate and the signature of the president. So the House cannot make cuts on their own.

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Yes they can make cuts on their own. The GOP controls the House of Representatives. They command the federal purse strings. They are unwilling to use that power but are fine with ever increasing spending.

sharrukin on November 20, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Super Committee about to be a super failure?

About? Hasn’t it always been a “super failure?”

Gatsu on November 20, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Anyone know what the total gov. spending was in the year 1787 as a percentage of GDP? Maybe we should just enforce that as the new spending cap. If it total spending was 3% of GDP in 1787…today we cap all spending at 3% and it can never increase above that point.

BadMojo on November 20, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Taxes today are what they were 10 years ago.

Spending today is 110% higher today than 10 years ago.

So you tell me, do we have a tax problem or a spending problem?

angryed on November 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Are the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Credit, or at least their current levels, considered parts of the Bush Tax Cuts? Honest question. Because if so…then I’m up for at least a partial cessation of those cuts. I say that as a father of 6 who pays at most 3-4% tax on my gross income (not adjusted) every year due to the CTC.

TexasDan on November 20, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Your 6 kids now get $6000 of tax credits. In 2013 that will be cut to $3000.

EITC on the other hand will remain what it is.

So people who pay taxes now, will pay more. People who don’t pay taxes now, will still not pay anything.

angryed on November 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Shocking- tax and spend socialists not wanting to be something other than tax and spend socialists.
Whole thing was a Dem/Media charade to screw the GOP- otherwise why wouldn’t they have accepted the new taxes in exchange for cuts?
The GOP actually thought they could trust the party that used a sham appropriation procedure to ram though socialized medicine.
Fools.

jjshaka on November 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM

this always seemed to me to be a loser from a R point of view…they get the shaft in cutting Medicare (people dying in the streets) and cutting defense.

but the truth is that the left owns the senate and the executive branch. the senate has not passed a budget in forever, effectively handing over everything to barry…and barry likes to spend

btw, fed government receipts are 17 percent of gdp because we are still screwed with barry as captain.

before the financial crisis, with the evil boosh tax plan, the receipts got up to 19 percent…so for all the leftists that are listening, it is the economy stupid.

Of course, barry is spending about 3.7T/year…and of course the first thing he’ll stop is the SS checks to grandma

my sources are the St. Louis Fed database (FRED).

r keller on November 20, 2011 at 5:15 PM

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Yes they can make cuts on their own. The GOP controls the House of Representatives. They command the federal purse strings. They are unwilling to use that power but are fine with ever increasing spending.

sharrukin on November 20, 2011 at 4:29 PM

No, they cannot enact cuts by their lonesome. A bill must be passed by both chambers and signed by the president in order for it to become a law.

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 5:35 PM

oh, come on, O’bammy is kickin it. He don’t need no super committee, cause he be the man!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehYoIKTsiV0

nwpammy on November 20, 2011 at 5:36 PM

No, they cannot enact cuts by their lonesome. A bill must be passed by both chambers and signed by the president in order for it to become a law.

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 5:35 PM

They could have refused to raise the debt ceiling and they can stop any new spending bills that come before the House. The House is not impotent.

equanimous on November 20, 2011 at 5:41 PM

No, they cannot enact cuts by their lonesome. A bill must be passed by both chambers and signed by the president in order for it to become a law.

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 5:35 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Appropriations

The Committee on Appropriations is a committee of the United States House of Representatives. It is in charge of setting the specific expenditures of money by the government of the United States. As such, it is one of the most powerful of the committees, and its members are seen as influential.

The Appropriations committee is widely recognized by political scientists as one of the “power committees,” since it holds the power of the purse.

Much of the power of the committee comes from the inherent utility of controlling spending. Its subcommittee chairmen are often called “Cardinals” because of the power they wield over the budget.

sharrukin on November 20, 2011 at 5:46 PM

sharrukin on November 20, 2011 at 5:46 PM

The Senate also has an Appropriations Committee.


Step Three: The Appropriations Process

The House and Senate Appropriations Committees decide funding levels for the multiple federal programs, within the overall allocations set by the budget resolution. Each appropriation bill must be signed by the President. Failure to do so requires a “Continuing Resolution” to continue the operation of the federal government.

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 5:55 PM

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 5:55 PM

The House can stop any spending it wants AND YOU KNOW THAT.

You want to give a cheap pass to the GOP for going along with the spending because its important to you for some reason. It doesn’t coincide with reality. The GOP has to give its stamp of approval for the money spent, and thats what they do.

You want to blame the Democrats but not the Republicans when they both voted yes to the spending spree.

sharrukin on November 20, 2011 at 6:03 PM

As I said in response to one of the revolving articles above,if there is one thing I’ve learned from all my years of teaching communication and psychology, it’s that people are most likely to respond when their own self-interests are involved.

From my point of view, then, if you really wanted the congressional committee to succeed you needed to employ sanctions impacting congress–which, unfortunately, the current ones did not.

Imagine, for example, that failure would have triggered the following two things: a revocation of all congressional retirement benefits earned up to that point and a two year moratorium on congressional pay. Could there be anyone on earth who doesn’t believe a deal would have been done under those circumstances?

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on November 20, 2011 at 6:04 PM

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 5:55 PM

The House can stop any spending it wants AND YOU KNOW THAT.

You want to give a cheap pass to the GOP for going along with the spending because its important to you for some reason. It doesn’t coincide with reality. The GOP has to give its stamp of approval for the money spent, and thats what they do.

You want to blame the Democrats but not the Republicans when they both voted yes to the spending spree.

sharrukin on November 20, 2011 at 6:03 PM

First of all, I already blamed some Republicans for our current state of affairs. Secondly, it is a fact that the House, the Senate, and the president are involved in the budget and appropriations process. Whether Boehner has properly used the leverage he has is a secondary matter; the law is the law and both the Senate and the president are involved in the process.

Stages of the Congressional Budget Process

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 6:25 PM

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Again with the evasions.

The Democrats approved the spending.
The Republicans approved the spending.

What is the difference?

Well the Democrats are fine with being drunken sailors, and the Republicans make a show of pretended virtue while doing the exact same thing.

sharrukin on November 20, 2011 at 6:31 PM

I’ve long since gotten over being shocked at hearing things like this, and in some ways it was rather refreshing to hear it stated so openly and honestly.

Was it ever a secret? Many of us here made it pretty clear the moment it was signed into law that this was the objective.

overall US tax receipts remain at historic lows.

bayam

And it has nothing to do with the current tax rates. But you knew that.

Historic lows or not, If the government stuck to doing it’s job, it would have plenty of money.

xblade on November 20, 2011 at 6:34 PM

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Again with the evasions.

The Democrats approved the spending.
The Republicans approved the spending.

What is the difference?

Well the Democrats are fine with being drunken sailors, and the Republicans make a show of pretended virtue while doing the exact same thing.

sharrukin on November 20, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Posting current law regarding the budgetary process is now an evasion? You expressed the opinion that the House can cut spending without involving the Senate and the president. They can propose to cut spending without either, yes, but they have to pass legislation through the normal channels to cut spending.

As for some Republicans being as bad as Democrats when it comes to spending, again, I agree with you. The Republicans went on a spending spree last decade and the Democrats accelerated our collapse. Regarding the so-called supercommittee specifically, judging from the information available, it is my opinion that the Republicans did, in fact, propose some serious first steps. Climbing out of this hole would require a mixture of austerity and growth, and this is what was proposed. The Democrats, meanwhile, embraced failure for the sake of political grandstanding and protecting the welfare state.

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 6:53 PM

So.. was this all just for show?

Yes. And no. It was used as a compromise point and cover in order to raise the debt limit and most members, including the Republicans, were in favor of raising the debt limit (or at least were convinced of its necessity). I’m not sure anyone thought they would actually reduce spending in any meaningful way, although, I think, many Democrats seized on it as a way to grab more “revenue” while pretending to reduce spending.

From a Politico piece on the supercommittee:

A Democratic aide had this eulogy for the supercommittee: “The worm has turned a little bit. The national conversation now is about income inequality and about jobs, and it’s not really about cutting the size of government anymore or cutting spending. 2010 gave one answer to that question. But 2012 will give another, and we’ve got to see what it is.”

In other words, Tea party: out; OWS: in. In order to create jobs and equalize income, we’re going to need massive amounts of new spending and increase the size of government (after all, public sector job creation is falling behind), debt and deficit be damned. And apparently the people who hold this opinion will sway the next election. Guess we Tea Partiers will just sit this one out.

Politico Playbook

SukieTawdry on November 20, 2011 at 6:54 PM

They could have refused to raise the debt ceiling and they can stop any new spending bills that come before the House. The House is not impotent.

equanimous on November 20, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Exactly! And when Boehner and Cantor held FOUR ACES in their hand because Obama and the Democrats knew it was curtains if the debt ceiling was not raised, Boehner & Cantor folded their hand in exchange for a committee that EVERYBODY KNEW was going to be deadlocked (except Boehner & Cantor). Pathetic. Republicans DESERVE to take the ENTIRE BLAME for the Super Committee being a complete failure. They bought into it and were duped from the get-go. Bunch of fools. Totally Pathetic.

Mahdi on November 20, 2011 at 6:54 PM

You expressed the opinion that the House can cut spending without involving the Senate and the president.

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 6:53 PM

They can withhold approval for any spending bill they want.

They don’t need the president or the Senate to do that.

sharrukin on November 20, 2011 at 7:00 PM

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 6:53 PM

They can withhold approval for any spending bill they want.

They don’t need the president or the Senate to do that.

sharrukin on November 20, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Yes, they can, but that is not the same as making cuts on their own.

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Yes, they can, but that is not the same as making cuts on their own.

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 7:03 PM

True, its just six, instead of half a dozen.

The money doesn’t get spent which is the point. They have the power and refuse to use it. They are just as responsible for the spending as the Democrats.

sharrukin on November 20, 2011 at 7:10 PM

i just watched the chris wallace sunday show repeat. AB said the truth, that it was a fake from the beginning. Juan is jubilant that barry/left out-foxed the party of stupid. Brit was dour about everything…and Kristol said, good, let 12 be the election that determines it…this is a democracy

AB thinks it will help barry because he was ‘un-involved’.

the party of stupid needs to grow a brain. They ought to memorize Sarah Palin’s facebook notes…i know it is tough, but someone has to do the hard work of governing this country rather than just stuffing your pockets with cash.

r keller on November 20, 2011 at 7:16 PM

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 7:03 PM

True, its just six, instead of half a dozen.

The money doesn’t get spent which is the point. They have the power and refuse to use it. They are just as responsible for the spending as the Democrats.

sharrukin on November 20, 2011 at 7:10 PM

The Democrats cannot allow a deal because (1) they are protecting entitlements and other social programs and (2) it defeats the Do-Nothing Congress 2.0 meme. But whether it will be truly helpful to them remains to be seen. Who truly wins this round will be determined by what happens with the sequester.

Regarding appropriations, a point which needs to be considered is that almost all appropriators vote themselves money, and we simply lack conservative appropriators because few conservatives want the assignment. If you want better appropriations bills in situations such as these, you need more fiscal conservatives writing and negotiating appropriations bills. I would also look at the recent roll calls for the specific minibus bills. The House Republican Conference keeps splitting on those votes.

youngTXcon on November 20, 2011 at 7:26 PM

AB stoddard’s point was the the whole business is fake, there won’t be any sequesters…they’ll be changed/lessened/dropped during next year’s lame duck session

i’m pretty sure the whole thing is to get leverage for barry/left.

Remember we are talking about small amounts of money…that are exaggerated by the media for entertainment and political theater reasons (and to re-elect barry)

Barry is spending 3.7T per year. 50 He takes in 2.5T per year. the left is holding the country hostage. Barry is spending at a rate that would require a 50% hike in ALL federal taxes…income, SS, Medicare, UI, excise, gasoline…Everything

Again, for the sake of banyam and all the other trolls, 50% hike in all taxes

r keller on November 20, 2011 at 7:42 PM

Democrats knew it was curtains if the debt ceiling was not raised, Boehner & Cantor folded their hand in exchange for a committee that EVERYBODY KNEW was going to be deadlocked (except Boehner & Cantor). Pathetic. Republicans DESERVE to take the ENTIRE BLAME for the Super Committee being a complete failure. They bought into it and were duped from the get-go. Bunch of fools. Totally Pathetic.

Mahdi on November 20, 2011 at 6:54 PM

..throw out Boehner, McConnell, and all of the Dem Senators in ’12 plus anyone else we can replace. Throw out the rest in subsequent years.

The War Planner on November 20, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Here’s an idea…. if the current 12 dolts fail, and they will, then we boot them out of Congress for incompetence and put 12 more in. If they fail… boot them out. Put 12 more in…. you get the idea. I will bet that after the 3rd or 4th iteration, we might get 12 morons that will come up with something because it will be their hides on the line… not the country or the people.

ultracon on November 20, 2011 at 8:58 PM

The only purpose for the Super Committee was failure. The Democrats put John Kerry(D) and Patty “Osama Mama” Murray(D) on it to sabotage any possibility of reasonability and the intention, just as with Obama’s jobs bill, was to fail and use the MainStreamMedia to blame the Democrats.

DANEgerus on November 20, 2011 at 10:53 PM

The Super-committee was just a dodge for Congress to avoid taking responsibility themselves for passing a budget. Since the exact same reasons for Congress to not pass a budget all applied equally to the super committee, failure was inevitable.

Which just proves that Congress really can’t avoid the blame after all.

The important thing at this point is who they try to blame now. And I think we already know the answer.

tom on November 21, 2011 at 4:16 PM