If Supercommittee agrees on LARGE cuts, any chance in world Congress will pass them?

[Little-Acorn]

IIRC the new rules say that the Supercommittee is charged with finding some $1.2 trillion in cuts. And that whatever the Supercommittee agrees on, is merely a recommendation, not a law (or even a passed bill). It then goes to the full Congress (House and Senate) for an up-or-down vote, without discussion. If they pass it, then the President gets his chance to sign it... or not.

Well, maybe the Congress can't discuss it, but the media can. And Congress's votes will be public, so it will be known that Congressman Bupkis from North Wherever voted to pass it. But you know the drill. As soon as the Scomm's recommendations are passed (or sooner), they will become public information. And the media screaming will begin instantly... but they may as well not waste the bandwidth. We already know what they will say.

"But-but-but this will take away school lunches from children! And that part will cut down Seniors' benefits! And the other part over there will be especially hard on women and minorities!!! WE CAN'T HAVE THIS!!!"

Same old, same old. And any Rep or Senator who dares vote for it, will be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. And Congresscritters will be put on all the morning shows as "Serious, concerned" newsreaders pillory them before the public any time they even hint they might vote Yes. And Breaking News will erupt every five minutes with the revelation that Mary Martin from Calexico actually said she is considering it. And etc. etc. You know the drill.

So, is this whole Supercommittee thing an exercise in futility? In the unlikely event that six Republicans and six Democrats can even agree how to spell "In Congress assembled", is there any chance that what they agree on, will even see the light of day in the full Congress before it's summarily thrown out?

[ConHog]

IIRC the new rules say that the Supercommittee is charged with finding some $1.2 trillion in cuts. And that whatever the Supercommittee agrees on, is merely a recommendation, not a law (or even a passed bill). It then goes to the full Congress (House and Senate) for an up-or-down vote, without discussion. If they pass it, then the President gets his chance to sign it... or not.

Well, maybe the Congress can't discuss it, but the media can. And Congress's votes will be public, so it will be known that Congressman Bupkis from North Wherever voted to pass it. But you know the drill. As soon as the Scomm's recommendations are passed (or sooner), they will become public information. And the media screaming will begin instantly... but they may as well not waste the bandwidth. We already know what they will say.

"But-but-but this will take away school lunches from children! And that part will cut down Seniors' benefits! And the other part over there will be especially hard on women and minorities!!! WE CAN'T HAVE THIS!!!"

Same old, same old. And any Rep or Senator who dares vote for it, will be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. And Congresscritters will be put on all the morning shows as "Serious, concerned" newsreaders pillory them before the public any time they even hint they might vote Yes. And Breaking News will erupt every five minutes with the revelation that Mary Martin from Calexico actually said she is considering it. And etc. etc. You know the drill.

So, is this whole Supercommittee thing an exercise in futility? In the unlikely event that six Republicans and six Democrats can even agree how to spell "In Congress assembled", is there any chance that what they agree on, will even see the light of day in the full Congress before it's summarily thrown out?

No chance.


The only thing that might work is if riders were made illegal. How many trillions are spent by some jackass adding funding for his pet project onto an important bill that he knows will be passed? That's some BS if you want a donkey research farm in podunk , KY you should have to introduce a bill to fund it, not add your little funding onto the back of a medicaid bill.

[Little-Acorn]

If the Supercommittee can't agree on cuts, then stiff penalties go into place instead: Automatic across-the-board cuts in many programs, including Defense etc.

But if the SComm DOES agree on major cuts, and then Congress votes them down, are there any penalties?

Or will we just be back to where we started, with wild, uncontrolled borrowing and spending and trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and no plan to rein them in?

[Little-Acorn]

My other question is:

Is the Supercommittee really charged with finding actual CUTS? Meaning, "We'll spend less next year, than we did this year."?

Or is all they have to do, is to say, "Well, we WERE going to increase spending by 15% for next year. But since these new rules require cuts, we've decided to spend only 12% more next year instead of 15% more. There you go - we've cut the budget, just like you wanted!"?

[fj1200]

... is there any chance that what they agree on, will even see the light of day in the full Congress before it's summarily thrown out?

Yes, and it'll get passed and signed. What elected official in their right mind would vote against a deficit "cutting" bill in this environment. The trick will be to agree one something/anything. Of course the Republicans might vote against anything with a tax hike in the bill.

[ConHog]

Yes, and it'll get passed and signed. What elected official in their right mind would vote against a deficit "cutting" bill in this environment. The trick will be to agree one something/anything. Of course the Republicans might vote against anything with a tax hike in the bill.

The real real trick will be, how do they make it look like they have made some great cuts while not actually cutting anything. That is how those fools operate.

[fj1200]

^Some zero-baseline budgeting would come in handy about now.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/tmdsu11111720111117101355.jpg

[revelarts]

I hate to say this but everytime I read "super committee It just SCREAMS "UNCONSTITUTIONAL , 13 PERSON BUDGET DICTATORS, NO CONNECTING TO THE PEOPLE, RED ALERT RED ALERT!!!!

Its hard/ impossible to bring myself to taking them seriously when the committee itself is just so wrong on it's face.

[fj1200]

I hate to say this but everytime I read "super committee It just SCREAMS "UNCONSTITUTIONAL , 13 PERSON BUDGET DICTATORS, NO CONNECTING TO THE PEOPLE, RED ALERT RED ALERT!!!!

Its hard/ impossible to bring myself to taking them seriously when the committee itself is just so wrong on it's face.

Unconstitutional? It'll be up for a vote by the full Congress. And isn't there only 12?

[Gunny]

No chance.


The only thing that might work is if riders were made illegal. How many trillions are spent by some jackass adding funding for his pet project onto an important bill that he knows will be passed? That's some BS if you want a donkey research farm in podunk , KY you should have to introduce a bill to fund it, not add your little funding onto the back of a medicaid bill.

NEVER forget the rainforest in Iowa.

[red states rule]

NEVER forget the rainforest in Iowa.

Hell, look at the "stimulus" money that we were told would pull America out of the wost economy since the Great Depression

This is 10 of 102 examples on how our tax monsy was spent by Obama and the Dems




10: Investing in nation-wide wind power (but majority of money has gone to foreign companies) ($2 billion)

9: Resurfacing a tennis court in Montana ($50,000)

8: University in Indiana studying why young men do not like to wear condoms ($221,355)
7: Funds for Massachusetts roadway construction to companies that have defrauded taxpayers, polluted the environment and have paid tens of thousands of dollars in fines for violating workplace safety laws (millions)

6: Sending 11 students and 4 teachers from an Arkansas university to the U.N. climate change convention in Copenhagen, using almost 54,000 lbs of carbon dioxide from air travel alone ($50,000)

5: Storytelling festival in Utah ($15,000)

4: Door mats to the Department of the Army in Texas ($14,675)

3: University in New York researching young adults who drink malt liquor and smoke pot ($389,357)

2: Solar panels for climbing gym in Colorado ($157,800)

1: Grant for one Massachusetts university for "robobees" (miniature flying robot bees) ($2 million)
GRAND TOTAL: $4,891,645,229
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/blog/2010/03/12/waste-102-the-final-list/#ixzz1e8awXPIc

[red states rule]

Ann Coulter reminds all of us how the Dems have a history of NOT cutting spending after getting tax increases




I'll Gladly Pay You Tuesday For a Tax Increase Today


Bored with the Penn State scandal because it didn't implicate any prominent Republicans, the mainstream media have suddenly become obsessed with Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge." They are monomaniacally fixated on luring Republicans into raising taxes.
If Democrats could balance the budget tomorrow and quadruple government spending, they'd refuse the deal unless they could also make Republicans break their tax pledge. That is their single-minded goal.

But the media are trying to turn it around and say that it's Republicans who are crazy for refusing to consider raising taxes no matter how much they get in spending cuts.

At Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate on foreign policy, for example, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates for the one-millionth time if they would agree to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts 10 times larger than the tax hikes.

Terrorism can wait -- first, let me try to back you into a corner on raising taxes.

Amazingly, Blitzer cited Ronald Reagan's statement in his autobiography, "An American Life," that he would happily compromise with Democrats if he could get 75 or 80 percent of what he wanted -- implying that today's Republicans were nuttier than Reagan if they'd refuse a dollar in tax hikes for $10 in spending cuts.

Wolf should have kept reading. As Reagan explains a little farther in his autobiography: He did accept tax hikes "in return for (the Democrats') agreement to cut spending by $280 billion," but, Reagan continues, "the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts."

Maybe that's why Republicans won't agree to raise taxes in exchange for Democratic promises to cut spending.

For Americans who are unaware of the Democrats' history of repeatedly reneging on their promises to cut spending in return for tax hikes, the Republicans' opposition to tax increases does seem crazy. That's why Republicans need to remind them.

From the moment President Reagan succeeded in pushing through his historic tax cuts in 1981 -- which passed by a vote of 323-107 in the House and 89-11 in the Senate, despite Democrats' subsequent caterwauling -- he came under fantastic pressure to raise taxes from the media and the Democrats.

You will notice it is the same culprits pushing for tax hikes today.

So in 1982, Reagan struck a deal with the Democrats to raise some business and excise taxes -- though not income taxes -- in exchange for $280 billion in spending cuts over the next six years. As Reagan wrote in his diary at the time: "The tax increase is the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts."

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2011/11/23/ill_gladly_pay_you_tuesday_for_a_tax_increase_toda y