• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Supercommittee Appointees

A

Anonymous

Guest
The first of the "supercommittee" is being revealed...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Tuesday that he would appoint Sen. Patty Murray, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts to the congressional "super committee," charged with crafting a plan to cut the country's deficit.

Murray, from Washington state, was tapped to co-chair the committee, Reid said in a statement.

Now Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi -- each get to appoint three members of Congress to serve on the powerful 12-person panel...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
well so far it is looking like a waste of time..

hopefully it isn't so watered down that it will just be a charade..
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
No matter what the committee comes up with, their recommendations will still have to be voted upon by the whole of Congress to be Constitutionally binding.

But I wouldn't be surprised at all if Reid says the Committee vote must be a "Supermajority" because it's a budget bill. :lol:

Wonder if Pelosi's picks will be spendthrift liberals that never saw an entitlement or tax they didn't love? :lol: :lol:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
OMG :shock: :roll: Kerry is appointed to the committee after he just went on TV and blamed the whole downgrade on the only people that were standing up and making the government even LOOK AT CUTTING SPENDING. So much for Reid appointing people that are going to be open minded and willing to work with the Republicans to fix the problems with out of control spending. :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Tam said:
OMG :shock: :roll: Kerry is appointed to the committee after he just went on TV and blamed the whole downgrade on the only people that were standing up and making the government even LOOK AT CUTTING SPENDING. So much for Reid appointing people that are going to be open minded and willing to work with the Republicans to fix the problems with out of control spending. :roll:

John Kerry has never had an original idea.

Wonder if he ever paid the taxes that he was dodging on his yacht?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hopefully they immediately go back to looking at what already has been worked out in the Simpson-Bowles commission- and work from there...I don't know about the other two- but I know Baucus was a member of the Simpson-Bowles commission...


How the super-committee can strike a Grand Bargain

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: August 4


Conventional wisdom holds that the congressional super-committee established by the debt-ceiling deal to propose further deficit reduction will go nowhere. I’m not so sure. There is a grand compromise to be had. It does, however, require precise sequencing. To succeed it must proceed in three stages:

(1) Tax Reform.


True tax reform that removes loopholes while lowering tax rates is the Holy Grail of social policy. It appeals equally to left and right because, almost uniquely, it promotes both economic efficiency and fairness. Economic efficiency — because it removes tax dodges that distort capital flows (and thereby diminish productivity) while cutting marginal tax rates (thereby spurring growth). Fairness — because a corrupted tax code with myriad breaks grants deeply unfair advantage to the rich who buy the lobbyists who create the loopholes and buy the lawyers who exploit them.

Which is why the 1986 Reagan-Bradley tax reform was such a historic success. It satisfied left and right, promoted efficiency and fairness, and helped launch two decades of almost uninterrupted economic expansion.

But didn’t that agreement take years to hammer out? Yes. Today, however, the elements are already laid out by the Simpson-Bowles commission. The super-committee doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel. It simply has to make choices.

(2) Revenue Neutrality.

Every dollar of revenue raised by stripping out a loophole is to be returned to the citizenry in the form of lower tax rates. Initial revenue neutrality avoids ideological gridlock over tax hikes and ensures perfect transparency during any later alterations of that formula.

Start with the obvious boondoggles, from the $6 billion a year wasted on ethanol subsidies to your Democratic perennials — corporate jets, oil-company breaks, etc. That’s the fun part. Unfortunately, whacking that piñata yields but pennies on the dollar. The real money is in the popular tax breaks: employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Altering some of these heretofore politically untouchable tax breaks would alone be a singular achievement.

I’d suggest abolishing the health-care exclusion, which encourages wasteful medical spending. I would also gradually abolish the mortgage-interest deduction. Start by excluding second homes and mortgages greater than, say, $500,000. Lower that threshold by $100,000 chunks as the housing market meets certain threshold indexes of recovery.

As for charitable contributions, here I go soft. I’d leave the deduction intact on the Madisonian grounds that subsidizing private charity — donations to institutions chosen by the citizens, not the state — disperses power and strengthens civil society, the principal bulwark against state domination.

Your preferences will be different. So will the super-committee’s. It doesn’t matter. What’s important is to make choices that are deep, radical and revenue-neutral.

But, you say, is not the committee’s mission to reduce debt? This, as yet, does nothing. Correct. But it’s the indispensable premise for achieving the ultimate in debt reduction:

(3) The Grand Bargain.

Once you have serious revenue-
neutral tax reform in place, the ideological horse-trading that is required for massive deficit reduction — tax hikes vs. entitlement reform — can begin.

Republicans will resist the former, Democrats the latter. But tax-reform-first makes possible the compromise that eluded John Boehner and Barack Obama. Boehner was willing to increase revenue by $800 billion. Obama was reputedly ready to raise the Medicare age and change the Social Security cost-of-living formula.

Remember: Tax reform will already have slashed rates radically. In one Simpson-Bowles scenario, the top rate plunges to 23 percent. Conservatives could at that point contemplate increasing net revenue by slightly tweaking these new low rates, say, back to Reagan’s 28 percent, still much lower than the current 35 percent and Obama’s devoutly desired 39.6 percent. The deviation from revenue neutrality would yield new tax receipts for the Treasury, in addition to those resulting from the economic growth stimulated by the lower rates.

Democrats would have to respond by crossing their own red line on entitlements. That means real structural changes. That means raising the Medicare and Social Security ages, indexing them to longevity (until 70 becomes the new 65) and changing the inflation formula. Perhaps even means-testing Social Security (after one has recouped what one originally paid in).

The result of such a grand bargain would be debt reduction on a scale never before seen. World confidence in the American economy would rise dramatically. Best of all, we would be back on the road to national solvency.

It can be done. In three months. In three stages
.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Mike said:
Tam said:
OMG :shock: :roll: Kerry is appointed to the committee after he just went on TV and blamed the whole downgrade on the only people that were standing up and making the government even LOOK AT CUTTING SPENDING. So much for Reid appointing people that are going to be open minded and willing to work with the Republicans to fix the problems with out of control spending. :roll:

John Kerry has never had an original idea.

Wonder if he ever paid the taxes that he was dodging on his yacht?

If Obama wants to collect more taxes why doesn't he just start appointing Dems to Senate approved department chairs. As soon as the vetting process kicks in the money would start rolling in from all those tax cheating crooks looking to clean up their records so they can be confirmed. Worked with Geithner and several others the first time he tried to filled the chairs. :wink:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
I have no idea why we are going through this song and dance.

The Democrats WILL NOT do what is necessary to turn this country around.

STOP THE SPENDING!!!!!!!!
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer didn't your hero Obama already toss the Simpson Bowles commission report out? The fact he ignored all the work that commission did and their recommendations is why people don't seem to have any confidence this commission is going to be taken seriously. They can make a deal but it is not CREDIBLE if, it is like Moody's warned, the next Administration is not bound to it. The rating agencies wanted a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, the Republicans passed one but REID and Obama wouldn't have anything to do with it. Then they blame the Republicans and Tea Party for the Downgrade. :roll: . STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES. And you can't get any stupider than the Dems refusing to admit the out of control spend they have been doing and the thumbing their noses at any solution to the problem is what CAUSED THE DOWNGRADE. OR was it an earthquake in Japan that caused it I just can't seem to keep up with who and What Obama is blaming today for his failures. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer didn't your hero Obama already toss the Simpson Bowles commission report out? The fact he ignored all the work that commission did and their recommendations is why people don't seem to have any confidence this commission is going to be taken seriously. They can make a deal but it is not CREDIBLE if, it is like Moody's warned, the next Administration is not bound to it. The rating agencies wanted a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, the Republicans passed one but REID and Obama wouldn't have anything to do with it. Then they blame the Republicans and Tea Party for the Downgrade. :roll: . STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES. And you can't get any stupider than the Dems refusing to admit the out of control spend they have been doing and the thumbing their noses at any solution to the problem is what CAUSED THE DOWNGRADE. OR was it an earthquake in Japan that caused it I just can't seem to keep up with who and What Obama is blaming today for his failures. :roll:

Tam- you seem to forget there were two groups in those talks Dems and Repubs (well actually 3- Dems, Repubs, and the Teabaggers)...Altho the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Bowles-Simpson) was voted down by Republicans- it was then authorized by executive order (of Obama)....Even Simpson then criticized Repubs for voting against and shooting down the commission claiming they did it for entirely partisan purposes to knock Obama...

The original proposal for a commission came from bipartisan legislation that would have required Congress to vote on its recommendations as presented, without any amendment. In January 2010, that bill failed in the Senate by a vote of 53-46, when six Republicans who had co-sponsored it nevertheless voted against it. Thereafter, Obama established the Commission by Executive Order 13531.
Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), after his appointment to co-chair the Commission, criticized the former supporters who had voted against the bill, saying that their purpose "was to stick it to the president." In the absence of special legislation, the Commission's proposals are not guaranteed to be considered by Congress in a single up-or-down vote.

The final report was never endorsed by the commission because it could not meet the supermajority needed to endorse it... But much of the same ideas were then picked up by the Gang of 6-- a bipartisan group that got shot down when House Repubs got hung up on reopening our Constitution and doing a Balanced Budget constitutional amendment....

Our country's political system has survived for 200+ years because of one thing- compromise...
And hopefully in a smaller group like this (without the wingnuts of either side doing dog and pony shows in front of the cameras) - they will again be able to do this- and be allowed to bring a nonamendable package to Congress that will go up for a yea or nea vote...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Just how compromising were the Dems when they wrote the Stimulus Bill and Obamacare that caused the skyrocketing debt Oldtimer? From what I hear not one Republican amendment made it into the final bills that hit the floor for a speedy late night vote. Real compromising weren't they :roll:

How Compromising were the Dems in the Senate when the Republican controled House passed the Ryan Budget and the Cut Cap and Balance Bill? Compromise is not achieved when one side is threatening veto before the final draft of a bill is even written. Compromise is when you actually read the bill discuss it and make amendments to the original until everyone is agreeable. Not Tableing it and threatening to veto before you even take the time to read the damn thing. Face it Oldtimer two hundred years of compromise came to a screaching halt when Pelosi uttered the words, We Won We write the bills. :mad: And that hag and Reid will never compromise as long as they control one of the two Chambers needed to make a bill into law. :roll:

And Obama might have signed the executive order to create the commisssion but he and the Dems did nothing with the report. Instead Obama wrote a budget that not even the Dems would vote for. Let's see what just some of the differences were.

By 2020, the commission would bring spending down to 21.8 percent of gross domestic product while Obama would reduce it to 23 percent of the gross domestic product --- The commission plan would entail much bigger spending cuts each year — more than $150 billion bigger — than Obama is proposing.

Under Obama’s plan, discretionary spending over the 10-year budget forecasting period would be 24 percent higher than under the fiscal commission plan.

Bigger tax increases from fiscal commission
The commission plan would raise more revenue over the next 10 years than Obama’s plan would.

The commission proposes to eliminate many of the tax credits, deductions, and other preferences that benefit particular groups of taxpayers or special interests.

It would keep mostly intact the two biggest preferences: the mortgage interest deduction and the tax-free status of most employer-provided health insurance. The commission would pare back the mortgage interest deduction by allow it only for mortgages of less than $500,000.

The commission claims that a cleaner, simpler tax code, with fewer tax breaks and lower rates, should result in $785 billion in new revenues from 2012 to 2020.

lower tax rates should result in new revenue :shock: I can see why Obama was ignoring the whole report. :wink: Thank God the WHOLE Congress returned the favor and ignored his budget. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
GOP announces its picks for supercommittee
By Erik Wasson


The GOP has announced its picks for the powerful deficit supercommittee.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has appointed Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.), Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) to serve on the deficit supercommittee.

Hensarling will serve as the co-chairman of the supercomittee.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) appointed his deputy Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), former Bush budget director Rob Portman (R-Ohio), and Tea Party favorite Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.)
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
What do you think Oldtimer is Nancy to busy getting her BOTOX to get her guys confirmed? :wink: I can just imagine the far left Congressman she will put up. :roll: I would not put it past her to put herself on it. :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Oldtimer said:
Altho the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Bowles-Simpson) was voted down by Republicans- it was then authorized by executive order (of Obama)..

considering the end result of the commission.. NOTHING DONE.. NOTHING ACTED ON,.. IGNORED,...

why even waste the money on it? in DC everything costs.. between staffing, coordination, reports and research it more then likely just added more to the deficit..

if the end result is nothing.. other then the money spent on the commission.. was just more waste.. so voting against it was the right vote..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
Altho the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Bowles-Simpson) was voted down by Republicans- it was then authorized by executive order (of Obama)..

considering the end result of the commission.. NOTHING DONE.. NOTHING ACTED ON,.. IGNORED,...

why even waste the money on it? in DC everything costs.. between staffing, coordination, reports and research it more then likely just added more to the deficit..

if the end result is nothing.. other then the money spent on the commission.. was just more waste.. so voting against it was the right vote..

So since they voted down Congressional authorization of the commission (which the votechangers had co-authored :???: )-- they ended up taking the teeth out of it-- and instead gave us weeks of a worldwide watched dog and pony show which showed the world our legislative process was dysfunctional- and ended with our credit rating being downgraded- a stockmarket crash------- and everything back in the hands of another committee to find fixes....
Is that really winning?

New CNN Poll: Majority want tax increase for wealthy and deep spending cuts
By: CNN Political Unit


Washington (CNN) - Most Americans want a special congressional committee tasked with drafting a long-term solution to the nation's mounting federal deficits to include tax hikes for the wealthy and businesses and deep cuts in domestic spending, according to a new national survey.

A CNN/ORC International Poll released Wednesday also indicates that the public doesn't want the super committee to propose major changes to Social Security and Medicare or increase taxes on middle class and lower-income Americans.

Under the debt ceiling deal passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama last week, a panel of 12 legislators - six Democrats and six Republicans, equally divided between the House and Senate - will be created to try to work out $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction after an initial round of more than $900 billion in spending cuts.

If the committee fails to reach agreement or Congress fails to pass whatever package it recommends, a trigger mechanism will enact further across-the-board cuts in government spending, including for the military.

According to the poll, 63 percent say the super committee should call for increased taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses, with 36 percent disagreeing. And by a 57 to 40 percent margin they say the committee's deficit reduction proposal should include major cuts in domestic spending.

But cuts in defense spending get a mixed review: Forty-seven percent would like the committee to include major cuts in military spending, with 53 percent saying no to such cuts.

Nearly two-thirds say no to major changes to Social Security and Medicare. And nearly nine in ten don't want any increase in taxes on middle class and lower income Americans.

"Republicans and Democrats disagree on the need for cuts in domestic and military spending, as well as tax increases for higher-income Americans, but they do agree that the committee should stay away from tax hikes for the middle class and major changes to Social Security and Medicare," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

According to the survey, only a third say that taxes on wealthy people should be kept low because higher-income Americans help create jobs, with 62 percent saying that taxes on the wealthy should be high so the government can use the money for programs to help lower-income Americans.

"That sentiment has changed little since the 1990s," adds Holland.

The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International on August 5-7, with 1,008 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey was conducted both before and after Friday night's downgrading of the country's credit rating by Standard and Poor's. The poll's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

The good thing is that much of the work of the Simpson/Bowles commission can now be brought forward again- and like old Kraut said-- they don't have to reinvent the wheel... Just all need to remember that 200+ years of our lawmaking has been done thru compromise- and start acting like statesmen instead of politicians...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
Altho the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Bowles-Simpson) was voted down by Republicans- it was then authorized by executive order (of Obama)..

considering the end result of the commission.. NOTHING DONE.. NOTHING ACTED ON,.. IGNORED,...

why even waste the money on it? in DC everything costs.. between staffing, coordination, reports and research it more then likely just added more to the deficit..

if the end result is nothing.. other then the money spent on the commission.. was just more waste.. so voting against it was the right vote..

So since they voted down Congressional authorization of the commission (which the votechangers had co-authored :???: )-- they ended up taking the teeth out of it-- and instead gave us weeks of a worldwide watched dog and pony show which showed the world our legislative process was dysfunctional- and ended with our credit rating being downgraded- a stockmarket crash------- and everything back in the hands of another committee to find fixes....
Is that really winning?

I didn't say winning.. I said given the end result .."NOTHING DONE AGAIN",.. it was the right vote..
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer just can't seem to understand the Simpson Bowles was a dog and pony show that Obama WASTED taxpayer money on. WHY? because he OBAMA ignored them IE never even looked at the report and took it seriously when he wrote HIS FAILED DEFICIT BUSTING BUDGET.

IF Obama had used it to write his budget and the Senate and House failed to pass his budget then one might beable to think it was worth something but not even the man that used an executive order to create it, used their recommendations in his own budget proposal to the Congress. THAT"S WASTEFUL OLDTIMER but it was Obama's waste so you will do anything to blame everyone but him, just like he does. You learned well or was it Obama that learned from you how to blame others and never take responsiblity for his actions. :?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Tam, when it comes to revenue, it's already agreed upon. The expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, end of 2012, which will mean an additional about $950 B

...and then there are the new taxes included in the obamacare bill. About $438 B.


The "Left" is acting like there have been NO tax increases already, because they want to double up on them, but they are already included in any budgeting and still result in record deficits, which are triple Bush's.


There are numerous other new taxes in the bill, all adding up to some $438 billion in new revenue over 10 years. But even that is understated because by 2019 the annual revenue increase is nearly $90 billion, or $900 billion in the 10 years after that. Yet Mr. Obama wants to add another $1 trillion in new taxes on top of this.

http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/daily-benefactor-news-obama-care-already-raised-taxes-by-438b/
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
US tax payers might as well get use to the idea of signing their pay checks over to the government as the Dems will not be happy until they have 100% taxes and everyone is depending on the Government for their daily bread and water. :roll:
 

Latest posts

Top