-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
The Congressional Spectator
How Super?
Will the so-called super committee end up pitting defense hawks against anti-taxers?
Can anything good come out of the super committee? It’s a question frequently being asked in Washington and conservatives are unsure of the answer.
The 12-member joint congressional committee, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, was formed at the end of a tumultuous debate over raising the federal debt ceiling. Its members are tasked with identifying and recommending $1.5 trillion in new spending cuts over 10 years by Thanksgiving. If they fail — or if Congress declines to enact their handiwork — it will set off a “trigger” automatically imposing $1.2 trillion in cuts over the next decade, to be taken equally from defense and nondefense spending. (Most entitlements are excluded.)
No matter how super, committee members will have their work cut out for them. There would be no committee in the first place if congressional Democrats had been willing to contemplate spending cuts of this magnitude at the time the debt limit was increased. Most Republicans will also balk at the reduction of defense spending necessary to win bipartisan approval.
“Nobody really knows what’s going to happen,” admits one Republican congressional staffer. “We’re cautiously optimistic, but this could go in a lot of directions.” Until the super committee’s recommendations are made, Capitol Hill conservatives are unsure of what their strategy should be.
The six Republicans on the committee are mostly conservatives. Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas is a co-chair. He cut his teeth working on fiscal issues with former Sen. Phil Gramm and was once chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee. Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania is also a leading economic conservative who previously headed the Club for Growth. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp both having conservative voting records and are close to GOP congressional leaders.
Possible question marks include Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohioan who wasn’t exactly part of last year’s Tea Party tidal wave, and Rep. Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican who attracted substantial conservative opposition when he ascended to the House Energy and Commerce chairmanship. But most of Upton’s transgressions are not on economic issues and Portman, as a former Bush administration budget director, is knowledgeable about federal spending.
Moreover, sources report that the Republican leaders in both houses have been hands-on with regard to the super committee process. “I don’t think any of these guys will get too far away from what the leadership wants when coming up with proposals,” says a GOP staffer. And the leadership won’t want to get too far away from what their rank-and-file members can support.
The Democratic membership is predictably liberal. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the committee’s Democratic co-chair, actually runs the Democrats’ Senate campaign committee. Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland is a recent past chairman of the Democratic House campaign committee, and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts was the party’s presidential nominee in 2004. (Kerry reportedly lobbied for his super committee slot.) South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn is the assistant House Democratic leader.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana and Rep. Xavier Becerra of California round out the Democratic selections. Baucus is a member to watch in terms of deal-cutting, as he has evinced some interest in deficit reduction in the past. Liberal bloggers were not happy with his appointment. One Daily Kos poster asked pointedly, “What the f— k is Harry Reid thinking?”
“Max Baucus?” the Kossite asked in a typical netroots reaction. “The guy who fought every jot and tittle of health care reform?” Conservatives are likely to remember Baucus’ role in the health care debate somewhat differently — though he certainly played a role in sinking the public option — which should temper their enthusiasm. Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias noted that “Baucus served on the Simpson-Bowles Committee and ultimately voted against its recommendations on the grounds that they weren’t left-wing enough.”
The committee has already agreed to hire a Republican, Mark Prater, as staff director. Prater was deputy staff director and chief minority tax counsel for the Senate Finance Committee. This move was also panned in progressive circles, but some Democrats praised Prater as a solid consensus pick.
That’s about the end of what we do know about the super committee. Its handiwork remains up in the air. So, in some quarters, does its legitimacy. In a speech before the Heritage Foundation, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blasted the panel as unconstitutional and warned that it might raise taxes rather than reduce spending.
“This is a city that says, ‘well, we’d really like to do better, but we can’t do any better so we’re going to have to do less of what we’re doing or we have to raise taxes,’” Gingrich fumed. “Since you don’t want us to do less of what we’re currently doing, we have to raise taxes, because after all you can’t expect us to change, so we’re going to expect you to change so you can pay the taxes we’re going to demand of you. But you can’t expect your government to change.”
Some might dismiss this as hyperbole from a floundering presidential candidate. But Hill conservatives do worry what might result from the pursuit of a “grand bargain” between the two parties. Past bipartisan agreements have included the debt deal and the continuing resolution that funded the federal government for the rest of this year, which most conservatives found inadequate. Another such grand bargain was the tax-raising 1990 budget agreement, which ultimately helped catapult Gingrich into the top spot among House Republicans. That poisoned the well for future deals, as the spending cuts proved illusory while the tax increases were very real.
BOTH THE STRUCTURE of the committee and the nature of the spending on the table seems almost designed to pit national security hawks against anti-tax fiscal conservatives. Tax increases could potentially save the defense budget from major cuts. Every Republican on the committee and most in Congress have taken Grover Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (35) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From The Congressional Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/12/how-super
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Shamus| 10.12.11 @ 6:49AM
After this committee fails to do its job, then a sequester is triggered that will make miniscule budget cuts. They've been called Draconian but they are really Lilliputian. Cuts in defense are only 3% (rather than the 10% they are said to be). Any decently managed group can find a 3% reduction in their budget, so I find it absurd that this would cause national defense to crumble.
ncatty| 10.12.11 @ 10:10AM
Agreed.
Cosmo| 10.13.11 @ 1:45AM
Real bad deal...Republicans gave up their majority in the House & are only 50% of the
House members on this Super Committee...
and Republicans gave up their filibuster in the
Senate, the only protection they have...Boehner and McConnell must go...sooner rather than later.
Border Babe| 10.13.11 @ 5:40AM
As John Stewart says, "When Republicans and
Democrats get together, somebody's going to get
screwed."
Zbigniew Mazurak| 10.12.11 @ 10:50AM
WRONG. The first round of the defense cuts that the debt ceiling deal has imposed (regardless of what recommendations the Super Committee comes up or if the sequester is triggered) will amount to 8% of the annual defense budget; Obama, however, has decided to raise that even further - $464 bn from the core defense budget over a decade, i.e. $46.4 bn per year. The sequester will impose additional cuts of $600 bn per year, on top of the first round, if a deal is not passed by Congress before Nov. 23rd. That's a total cut of defense spending of $950 bn - $1064 bn over a decade, i.e. $106.4 bn per year, almost 20% of the FY2012 core defense budget ($513 bn). Your claims are blatant lies. LEARN THE FACTS BEFORE YOU COMMENT, PEOPLE!
Shamus| 10.12.11 @ 11:17AM
The facts are that the $600 billion figure you cite is over ten years, and not over one year as you claim. Including cuts already imposed, the real amount cut from the budget is closer to $100 billion per year. The budget request for 2012 is in the range of $1.030–$1.415 trillion plus black spending programs. Cutting $100 billion from this number might look like a 10% cut, but that ignores increases in the baseline. If you look at real dollar number, the proposed cut is 3%.
Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 6:01PM
I argue not with the Zbig.
By the way, wasn't it true, Zbig, (please correct me) that, within a certain sane percentage of taxation, that the lower you went on tax rates the higher the government income went due to an improved economy? Wasn't that the whole point of the Laffer curve? Did they come up with the lowest tax point in which they expected government income to increase?
Thanks.
Alan Brooks| 10.12.11 @ 4:39PM
"Will the so-called super committee end up pitting defense hawks against anti-taxers?"
Gosh, this must be the harbinger of Armageddon.
Mike Hawk| 10.12.11 @ 6:49AM
That committee will producw nothing substantive.
Alan Brooks| 10.12.11 @ 5:53PM
the Super Committee is the Dream Team
("shut up, Brooks")
Pecos Pete| 10.12.11 @ 6:53AM
Super Committee = Super Nothing
Richard Baker| 10.12.11 @ 7:33AM
Newt was correct regarding this abomination. This committee is a way for the anointed in Congress to once again try to avoid their Constitutional duties. How many days since a budget?
TrueBlue| 10.12.11 @ 4:49PM
Blame the Senate Dems, and a few RINOs, for the lack of a budget. The House has passed several since they got in office back in January. They've all been tabled without even being discussed by the Senate.
Negro X| 10.12.11 @ 7:58AM
Why do they demand that all their meetings be held in secret? To perpetuate the scam against American taxpayer. This garbage to to stop.
Timothy L. Pennell| 10.12.11 @ 8:21AM
Thank You Pecos Pete, but, I'm afraid that it's even WORSE than that.
The Democrats, on the Stupid Committee, will NEVER budge off of their: Tax, Tax, and Tax Some More, Position. They will NEVER waiver from their: NO CUTS in Entitlement Spending, Position. They will not give an inch. Of that, we can all be certain.
The Republicans?
I have no Faith in any of them. They are Spineless, and Weak, and they are complete COWARDS, afraid of their own Shadows, and how they'll be portrayed by the MSM. They will Cave, and Buckle, and Fold like a cheap Camera. (Hat Tip to Bob Grant)
Even after the 2010 Election MASSACRE of the Democrats, they still refuse to take YES, for an answer. They are determined to snatch Defeat, from the Jaws of Victory. Plus, none of them are REAL Conservatives. One of them, in fact, is the Architect of the LIGHT BULB BAN. How great is that?
And, even if Hell DOES freeze over, and these weak pompous asses DO grow a spine. Then what?
The Vote is a Tie, and we GUT DEFENCE.
Nice Plan, Boehner. Excellent Compromise, McConnell.
That's what I'm talking about.
They had the Muslim BY THE BALLS, and THIS was the best they could come up with?
All RINOS must be Primaried.
Hey Lugar. I'm talking to YOU!
Michael Tomlinson| 10.12.11 @ 8:36AM
Why is it so hard to cut useless programs like Americorp, the Peace Corps, legal aid (welfare for Democrat lawyers), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, ethanol subsidies, "green energy" scams, foreign aid to Egypt for persecution of Coptic Christians, foreign aid to any Muslim nation or any nation with ties to Iran and Syria, foreign f*****g aid to China, etc.. Republicans should put trash this on the block and say, "Cut this BS or watch your favorites get the axe."
Let them cut defense spending in California and surprisingly New England and the Northeast on research and development and see the pigs squeal.
Teflon93| 10.12.11 @ 8:47AM
What will happen is that the RINOs will conspire with Democrats to jack up taxes and cut defense. As they always do.
russel| 10.12.11 @ 10:06AM
Yep , the first order of business was the socialist' s asking that taxes be discussed . I only saw this once , but not surprised . This stupid commitee idea , another rope-the-dope GOPhers , will end wadded up in some dusty corner while we pay millions each day in interest .
Harry the Horrible| 10.12.11 @ 9:06AM
Ya know, if it were ONLY Defense Hawks against Anti-Taxers, we'd be in good shape.
Unfortunately, its the Poverty Pimps that wield the real power in Congress.
martin j smith| 10.12.11 @ 10:14AM
This stupid committee came out of an "agreement" about the debt ceiling and was a sign that we have poor leadership on the Republican side. The Socialists will not agree to anything that has to do with the word cut in the context of budgetary spending. In fact they do not even produce a budget. So I see deadlock which is better that complete Socialists control. But this leaves us with this: The voters will have to decide what kind of government they want. No more bipartisan BS--its either this or that--mixed government of the players we have simply does not work.
hardcard| 10.12.11 @ 10:21AM
is kerry going to pay his taxes now?
JFGalt| 10.12.11 @ 12:35PM
Why is everybody so dead set against cutting defense? It needs to be cut. It is completely out of control. Those knuckleheads don't even know where a lot of their money ends up. Trillions lost and nobody supposedly knows where. Weapons costs are insane and nothing is done about it. Their procurement system would never hold up in the real world. We can have the best defense in the world but the Pentagon needs to do its part instead of being an entre into the executive suites of defense contractors upon retirement. The biggest point that I want to make about this though is that if Republicans will never do anything about defense spending then there is no validity in holding Democrats to the same standards with their pet projects.
Pat| 10.12.11 @ 1:26PM
You gotta love Bi-Partisan Committees, Americans actually believe in them - one of the few remaining mechanisms us contentious, group identity Americans depend on to produce something “good” during times of national trouble. Congress and Obama, deep in their souls, realize that whenever the American public is ready to chew nails over the perceived shortcomings of our elected parasites, all you need do is announce the formation of a Bi-Partisan Committee (Yea!), bringing Republicans and Democrats into sweet harmony – then whatever ugly problem bedevils us Americans will soon find itself defanged, toast and dead meat – Bi-Partisanship can be more devastating than X-Men, Thor, Batman and the Green Hornet working as one. The Architect of the Capitol’s office is presently contemplating the addition of a fourth Public Restroom type to the Capitol Building complex – Republicans, Democrats, Independents and Bi-Partisans – and it’s anticipated that whenever nature calls most, if not all, of our elected representatives will hurry into one of those new Bill Clinton Bi-Partisan Restrooms.
Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn’t believe in American Bi-Partisan Power quite as much as we do. Europe long ago realized you can spend money on national defense or spend more money on welfare, they chose more welfare so long as America was continuing to build new aircraft carriers. But who will build new aircraft carriers when America is forced to choose more in public welfare and interest on debt spending, much less in defense spending and how will Bi-Partisanship overcome that problem?
China is looking forward to increasing their defense spending, they can certainly afford it, which makes many of us Americans uneasy, thus our turning toward Bi-Partisan Power for comforting answers. What if China should use its newfound wealth and economic dominance to bully us Americans? How will we answer the Chinese as confidence in their growing economic power leads to increased intimidation of America? What can we threaten them with? Stop it or we’ll borrow even more money from you!
Trinacria| 10.12.11 @ 2:29PM
"Can anything good come out of the super committee? It’s a question frequently being asked in Washington and conservatives are unsure of the answer."
If conservatives are unsure of the answer to this question, well, they aren't really conservatives, are they?
I'm reminded of a quote by the inimitable G.K. Chesterton:
"I've searched all the parks and all the cities and found no statues of committees."
Occam's Tool| 10.12.11 @ 6:04PM
With TWO exceptions, Trinacria: The Constitutional Convention of 1789 and the World Zionist Conference in Basel, Switzerland.
Those were two generators of committies that were useful. Also, the staff of COSSAC in WWII.
Trinacria| 10.12.11 @ 6:56PM
Point taken; I stand corrected (though I hasten to note that none of the committees above were burdened with the handicap of having members like John Kerry, Patty Murray, and James Clyburn...).
Drunken Sailor| 10.12.11 @ 3:50PM
A committee is a group that keeps minutes and loses hours.
Milton Berle
Paul from SA| 10.12.11 @ 5:28PM
I wonder how good their accomodations and lunches will be. Do they get limo service to and from their suite?
noelmjr| 10.12.11 @ 9:56PM
The Gang of 12 is doomed to failure. Both parties appointed doctrinare leaders who are, always have been, and always be diametrically opposed with respect to political posture. Another silly output from a divided Congress. Logic would dismiss their deliberations and get on with sequestration. The "media" wouldn't like that because it would rob them of grist for their mill.
D Roamer | 10.13.11 @ 1:29AM
The secrecy of the group casts a shadow of mistrust for me. Hopefully when it is all over, the committee will go the way of the "little Hoover commission" and others I do not recall. We should see the periodic minutes and thoughts as they proceed. they could throw out some ideas for comments every now and then as well.
POST American| 10.13.11 @ 5:14AM
---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
---What to say?
Vapid '90's Show' Punch n' Judy with
all strings leading to the Globalist RED China
set up, sellout, TREASON and EUGENICS OP.
------Keeeeeeeep a goin' kiddies!
-----------Skull n' Bones n' capstone clones----------
----------------Just keep a goin'
InLineFour| 10.13.11 @ 12:40PM
"Super Committee" is an oxymoron with John Kerry and Patty Murray as members.
Allen Johnson| 10.13.11 @ 10:57PM
The so-called Defense budget needs to be hacked severely. The question needs to be asked, "Why does the U.S. need to spend as much on its military as the rest of the world combined? "
Personally, I think of two possible answers. One, that the U.S. has pretensions of Empire. Second, the military industrial complex is very profitable with a powerful lobby.
I do not think the "defense budget" has much to do with actually protecting our wives and sisters and daughters from the barbarians.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 10.14.11 @ 7:39AM
Garbage. Firstly, the US does NOT spend as much on its military as the rest of the world combined - not even close. According to the SIPRI, the US was responsible only for 42.8% of the world's total military spending in CY2010, and that is even if one takes SIPRI's understated figures for Russian and Chinese military budgets as correct. Secondly, the US is not an empire and has no pretensions to be one. Thirdly, the "military-industrial complex" is a myth. It's a blatant lie. The DOD's entire annual budget is just 4.4% of GDP, and the defense industry ranks very low on the Fortune 500 list of the biggest American companies. LM, the biggest company of the defense industry, ranks 26th IIRC.
The defense budget has EVERYTHING to do with protecting the American people and the US as a country. It should not and must not be cut any further. Cutting it as the first thing, or even on par with other budgets, is wrong and against the Constitution, which REQUIRES the federal government to provide a strong defense.
POST American| 10.13.11 @ 11:30PM
-----------HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012---------
---------------------ABSOLUTELY-----------------------
---------------------ON THE WAY-----------------------