What could possibly have gone wrong with the Supercommittee went wrong

posted at 10:18 am on November 22, 2011 by Howard Portnoy
[ Politicians ]   

Those who are not surprised that the Supercommittee failed in its task of finding $1.2 trillion in federal budget cuts by November 23 take one step forward. Those who are not surprised that the president, the Democrats, and their public relations wing (aka the mainstream media) are holding the Republicans accountable take one step backward. Those who are not back where they started, please leave the room.

Sad but true, yesterday the august group of 12 Congress members tasked with doing what Congress as a whole couldn’t admitted failure. The co-chairs issued a statement reading in part:

After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee’s deadline.

Despite our inability to bridge the committee’s significant differences, we end this process united in our belief that the nation’s fiscal crisis must be addressed and that we cannot leave it for the next generation to solve. [Emphasis added]

Amen to that. Here’s a thought: Why not have the leadership of both houses each appoint three Senators and three Representatives to a serve on special committee charged with making those difficult cuts. You could call it the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. Oh, wait…

In all seriousness, who couldn’t have seen this train wreck coming in August, when the Supercommittee was first formed? And who couldn’t have predicted the editorials and commentaries that would follow the failure? The Los Angeles Times editorializes:

Engaging in self-caricature, the Republicans insisted on no new taxes, a posture they modified slightly to propose $250 billion in new revenues, some offset by their other proposals, including making the Bush-era tax cuts permanent. Democrats, meanwhile, irresponsibly resisted meaningful cuts in domestic programs. Hobbled by their dogmatic opposition to taxes, the Republicans were arguably more intransigent. [Emphasis added]

The New York Times was similarly fair and even-handed in its reaction:

And, naturally, they [the GOP] rejected the proposal from supercommittee Democrats to cut at least $3 trillion from the deficit, because a third of it would have come from higher taxes on the rich. When you hear Republicans claim that Democrats refused to touch their sacred cows of spending, remember that the Democratic offer would have cut $475 billion from Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years, nearly half of which would have come directly from beneficiaries….

These plans actually tipped too far in the direction of spending cuts. By comparison, the Republican offers were risible.

Finally, for comic relief, here is Eugene Robinson:

No, the sun didn’t rise in the west this morning. No, Republicans on the congressional supercommittee didn’t offer meaningful concessions on raising new tax revenue. And no, “both sides” are not equally responsible for the failure to compromise.

As usual, the two parties began with vastly different ideas of what it means to negotiate. Democrats envisioned meeting somewhere in the middle, while Republicans anticipated not moving an inch. This isn’t just my spin, it’s a matter of public record: Before the 12-member supercommittee ever met, House Speaker John Boehner warned that it had better not agree to any new tax revenue.

The stark reality is that both sides hunkered down because neither wanted to face the certain condemnation from their base that was sure to ensue if they made the needed concessions. But the Democrats deserve special blame for introducing straw man arguments into their statements to the press during the three-plus months of failed negotiations. The fiercely partisan Democratic co-chair Patty Murray spoke early and often about the need for the rich to “share the burden” as if the wealthiest Americans were currently getting a free ride rather than picking up the tab on 38% of all tax revenues.

Related Articles

• The power of flat-out self-delusion
• Study: Americans’ incomes have fallen more during recovery than during recession
• Shared sacrifice: Cutting ObamaCare could save $2 trillion
• Obama and the meaning of shared sacrifice
• Solution to the debt crisis: Tap the nation’s “additional income” reserve
• Obama’s economic “fairness doctrine”

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.

Blowback