The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

The Next Step After the Debt Ceiling Deal

By on 8.3.11 @ 1:25PM

The next opportunity for Republicans to reform the federal government’s spending will be when the debt deal-mandated Super Committee forms to make its recommendations before Thanksgiving. Because the committee will consist of six Republicans and six Democrats with simple majority rule, the selection of the committee members is crucial: just one tax hike-friendly Republican could tilt the playing field in Democrats favor. In other words, “the ultimate product will only be as good for conservatives as the weakest Republican link on the panel.” 

The Republican strategy is clear. James Capretta spells it out: 

…under no circumstances should the GOP appoint members to the joint committee who are willing to entertain tax increases. If the Democrats on the committee insist on tax hikes as a condition for approval of a plan, then the Republicans should be prepared to let the clock start ticking toward the automatic cuts that would go into effect next year. If Republicans stand firm again, there’s a good chance they will come out ahead in the next battle, just as they did this time. 

Ramesh Ponnuru thinks that this strategy just might result in real entitlement savings coming out of the Super Committee: 

Pit domestic discretionary spending against middle-class entitlement spending. Liberals know that middle-class entitlement spending is more valuable to them politically, but they care more about discretionary spending. So the Republicans could hold the line on taxes while also advancing entitlement reforms that (1) spare the poor as much as possible, (2) yield savings within the budget window, and (3) don’t cross any ideological red lines for the Democrats. I think the Coburn-Lieberman Medicare reforms, though not perfect, would be a good template for Republicans on the commission to work with.

In effect the Republicans would be saying: Accept these entitlement reforms, or we’ll let the automatic cuts to both defense and domestic discretionary spending become law and see which side is more likely to get those cuts reversed in the political process.

The downside to this approach is that it would necessitate subordinating the priorities of national security conservatives (not to mention defense lobbyists) to the need for health care reform. But if Republicans played it perfectly, the end result would be much-needed, substantial reforms to Medicare, limiting the cuts to defense and near-term discretionary spending. 

Edited for clarity. 

View all comments (29) |

Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 1:55PM

The Dems will appoint their most ideological leftists. The GOP will appoint their most accomodationist compromisers. However, the GOP should appoint their most dedicated free marketeers.

Beyond the committee the next step needs to be a budget freeze over the next couple years to allow revenue to rise as the economy grows, to match committed spending. It's a start.

TB| 8.3.11 @ 2:44PM

Nonsense. The GOP won the last round in spite of the tea party toddlers trying to prevent every deal that wasn't exactly what they wanted, like petulant children who want ice cream for dinner and would rather cry and scream themselves blue in the face and go to bed hungry. Boehner had to deal with whiny tea party toddlers on the one side and whiny liberal toddlers on the other. And he still came out with a deal that made real cuts with NO tax increases.

That's what gives the tea party toddlers their current case of diaper rash. Boehner and McConnell and the other adults in the room are going to win the next round too, in spite of the tea party toddlers best efforts to embarrass those adults like a cranky kid in a grocery store throwing things on the floor because he can't open the bag of cookies and spoil his dinner.

Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 3:00PM

So it is actually about who gets credit for cuts that will never happen. OK Boehner is the best thing since sliced bread. TB, show me the money.

TB| 8.3.11 @ 3:18PM

Boehner already had enemies on the left to deal with. The tea party poopers gave him enemies on the right, enemies who seemingly wanted to embarrass the GOP so badly that they'd not only fail to win the Senate and White House, they'd possibly lose the House as well. Because the tea party toddlers only want to cry. They don't want to solve problems they just want to whine about problems. And they can whine and play the victim card much better if they have no power.

Well guess what? The adults in the room understand that you have to do the best you can with the power you have AND you have to be thinking ahead not just acting on infantile whims. You have to be thinking ahead about how to increase the power you have and that means not throwing temper tantrums that do nothing positive and only alienate voters.

The current case of tea party toddler diaper rash is because the cuts WILL happen, and more cuts on top of that when the across the board cuts are triggered, and taxes will NOT be raised, and everyone with an attention span better than a three year old will remember that it was the tea party toddlers who made the deal worse than it might have been by refusing to behave like adults.

Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 3:44PM

Taxes go up on auto-pilot in Jan 2013.
Cuts will not eventuate. Certainly not of any significance. One Trillion over ten years doesn't even keep pace with built in increases.

At best, the deal represents a holding strategy whereby the new majorities and administration can act following 2012.

Nick| 8.3.11 @ 3:33PM

TB,

Can I sell you some ocean front property? How about a bridge in Brooklyn?

You keep on eating Boehner's "Crappy Meal," as Michelle Malkin puts it. Also, there are no actual cuts, you naive hack. Except for the $4.5 billion in national security cuts, that is.

When Boehner next asks someone to pull his finger, I'm sure you'll be first in line, won't you, TB?

TB| 8.3.11 @ 3:58PM

Someone's cranky! Izzums widdle Nicky cranky? Izzums? Izzums? Did the big bad Boehner not let you stick the fork in the outlet? It was for your own good even if you don't understand it yet. Yes it was! Yes it was!

No, you can't get a default on US debt or a credit downgrade. Why? Because it would be bad. Why? Because it would drive up interest rates and increase foreclosures and make it harder for people who run businesses to borrow working capital, among other things. Why? It's complicated, I'll try to explain it when you're older. Why? Because when you're older maybe you'll understand that sometimes it's better to get part of a happy meal than to dump out the garbage on hardworking Americans just because you don't get your way.

Now go take a nap with the other tea party toddlers.

Nick| 8.3.11 @ 4:16PM

TB,

TB? This must stand for Totally Braindead, huh?

So, you're okay with $4.5 billion in national security cuts? You're also okay with Boehner lying about having 3 days to read all legislation? (See my comment, below.)

I'll stick with Rush, Levin, Malkin, and the Heritage Foundation. You stick with Will, Krauthammer, Barnes, Kristol, and the cry-baby Oompa-Loompa Boehner.

Also, didn't you hear? The T.E.A. Party won. It's been in all the papers.

Seriously, can I sell you a time-share in Boca, TB?
You're not gullible at all.

TB| 8.3.11 @ 4:54PM

"So you're okay with ..."

Here's what I'm not okay with: ending up with nothing because the tea party poopers can't understand something as simple as the fact that the GOP only controls half of one third of the government.

It's worse than that. The tea party poopers were eager to end up with no compromise, meaning NO cuts at all, plus making the GOP look bad and hurting our chances of controlling more than half of a third of the government.

The tea party toddlers understand the world in much the way a real toddler does: hopelessly simplistic. A toddler might enjoy mashing spaghetti into his hair. He likes the way it feels and thinks it's hilarious. So why does mommy get upset? The toddler doesn't understand.

The tea party toddlers couldn't understand why a party that controls only one house, and not the other and not the Presidency, couldn't just hold its breath until it turned blue and get everything they wanted.

Toddlers have no concept of compromise. They have no ability to think about the long term. They don't care how bad they make the GOP look to Americans suffering in these economic times, and what that would do to our chances in 2012.

Rush and Levin and Erickson and the others put their pocketbook first, which is perfectly fine for them to do. The adults in the audience can tell when they're trying to stir up controversy in order to get publicity and make more money. They are in show business. Not politics. It's show business.

Taking every word that comes out of their mouth at face value is like thinking Elmo is real.

Nick| 8.3.11 @ 5:30PM

Totally Braindead,

You know about as much about politics as you do about conservatism.

You belong at The Weakly Standard, with your fellow RINOs, not here at TAS. You obviously believe the RINO elites when they tell you it's raining on your leg, don't you?

It's chumps like you that gave us hacks like S-P-E-C-T-O-R, Snowe, Collins, McLame, Grahmnesty, Hatch, etc.

Keep eating your Crappy Meal, you RINO sycophant.

Clint| 8.3.11 @ 5:34PM

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 22% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19

Administration officials concede the debate gave the public a look at government sausage-making at its worst. And White House officials also know that as president, Obama is the most visible symbol of a government that voters see as badly dysfunctional. The turmoil in Washington is not what voters signed up for when Obama was elected, officials say, acknowledging that as president, he absorbs a substantial share of voters' unhappiness."

Box Of Tissues, RINO-CINO Crybaby?

Teflon93 | 8.3.11 @ 2:06PM

"But if Republicans played it perfectly, the end result would be much-needed, substantial reforms to Medicare and limited cuts to defense and near-term discretionary spending."

Tyrrell must have opened up the bar again.

Big Java| 8.3.11 @ 2:19PM

In reference to the GOP leaders doing the above:
IT AIN"T GONNA HAPPEN!

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.3.11 @ 2:28PM

One thing I've never seen the political class embrace, and that is if someone lives in poverty and likes it or wants to be poor, why should the government interfere?

Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 3:02PM

They actually might consider the standard of living of the American poor. How many have a home? How many have a car or TV or computer and cell phone? Given the amount of aid available, being poor in America is actually a viable choice for many who wish to opt in.

Nick| 8.3.11 @ 2:46PM

Mr. Lawler,

"[...] the selection of the committee members is crucial: just one tax hike-friendly Republican could tilt the playing field in Democrats favor." (Emphasis mine.)

And we can trust Boehner not to cave, right? Oh, wait a minute, no, we can't.

I'll re-post this, in case you missed it, Mr. Lawler:

John Boehner is a liar and broke his word. He promised in the
2010 Pledge to America (remember that GOP?) to give
Americans THREE DAYS to read legislation
before a vote.

"Americans should have three days to read all bills before
Congress votes on them."
- John Boehner, Oct. 30, 2010

He's only been Speaker of the House for seven months, and he is
already breaking his word. How is this any different than when
SanFran Nan Pelosi did the same thing?

It's not like Boehner is incapable of keeping his word. That is, for
democrats. Remember H.R. 1, earlier this year? He let democrats
offer hundreds of amendments to keep "the Pledge’s commitment to an
'open process that makes it easier – not harder' to cut spending
[...]."

I guess we conservatives can just go pound sand, huh?

By the way, this grand deal has cut $4.5 billion from
national security spending for Fiscal Year 2012. These are
real cuts, $4.5 billion less spending
than FY 2011, not the phony C.B.O cuts from baseline
budgeting, which only reduce the growth of spending.

Thanks to this cry-baby Oompa-Loompa, we no longer have a veto
over that incompetent boob in the White House. Thank
you, sir, may I have another!

ChrisChicago| 8.3.11 @ 2:59PM

Any thoughts on who your six members would be (3 from the Senate, and 3 from the House)?

What we need is a delicate balance of those who will NOT give into tax increases in any way shape or form, but are not ideological purists that, through their inability to budge even a little, would put our defense budget at risk of collapsing.

My Picks?

Senate: Jeff Sessions, Marco Rubio, Orin Hatch as the weakest link.

Why Hatch? He is going to be in the fight of his life in the 2012 GOP primaries, and I highly doubt he is going to be willing to give an inch tax increase-wise and simply hand over a case of ammo to Chaffetz to use in the primary.

Alternate Choices: John Thune, John Kyl (al though it makes me nervous that he is retiring in 2012, and thus would have less to lose by agreeing to revenue increases, al though he is one of Washingtons great anti tax crusaders) and Rob Portman (al though if he is being endorsed by McCain for the role, I would take pause).

And in the House?

Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and??? That last pick is a tough one since this individual will probably be the weak link.

Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 3:46PM

Dems will appoint their most hardline ideological redistributionists.

GOP wil appoint their bi-partisan accomodationists.

Result all too predictable.

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.3.11 @ 5:46PM

Neither. The only ones that will accept seats in this affront to the Constitution are politicians from completely safe seats. Whoever sits on this committee is doomed if they have to participate in an open election.

W| 8.3.11 @ 3:11PM

Reid will appoint McCain to represent the Democrats.

ncatty| 8.3.11 @ 3:30PM

Let the committee fail to agree and let the automatic cuts kick in. I am not happy about defense cuts, but it is time to get out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya anyway. Am I missing any others, Yemen?

Nick| 8.3.11 @ 3:37PM

ncatty,

I'm pretty sure we're still in Macedonia and Kosovo, thanks to Bubba 'the pervert' Clinton. How long did that perv say we were going to be helping in Bosnia? A year?

ncatty| 8.3.11 @ 3:44PM

Good point. Now Syria is heating up. Our President has demonstrated an interventionist bent. No more wars. Good grief, I saw that on a lefties bumper sticker. What is happening to me?

Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 3:48PM

Why do the lefty cars all have that "free Tibet" sticker? Do they expect us to invade and force the issue? That would mean war wouldn't it?

Nick| 8.3.11 @ 4:34PM

ncatty,

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

Hey!
Hey!
B.H.O.!

How many did you get killed in Cairo?

Or, how about:

Hey-hey! Ho-ho!
B.H.O. has got to go!

Hey-hey! Ho-ho!
B.H.O. has got to go!

Michael Hawke | 8.3.11 @ 4:31PM

WHAT A JOKE! The GOP caved on the debt deal, on the government shutdown, and everything previous. No reasonable person thinks they'll do anything but cave, every single time.

Only this time, Boehner, McConnell, and the GOP leaders handed the Democrats a loaded gun in the Super Congress. Fools!

SCPOret| 8.3.11 @ 4:57PM

We could have a fight on the 2012 budget, except Bonehead gave that away in the deal. If you delve into the bill, the 2012 budget was "deemed passed". The same BS (and that's not a bacon sandwich) that the dems have foisted on us in the past to prevent having to take up budget talks.

martin j smith| 8.3.11 @ 5:16PM

I already have NO CONFIDENCE IN BOEHNER AND MCCONNELL AS IT IS--LAWLER WHAT MAKES YOU THINK I WILL ANY MORE CONFIDENCE IN THIS SUPER DOOPER GROOOPER ? ON MY PARTY ZERO.

Nick| 8.3.11 @ 7:56PM

"'The American people are in charge of this country, and they deserve a Congress that acts like it,' said Boehner. 'Americans should have three days to read all bills before Congress votes on them--something they didn't get when the "stimulus" was rushed into law. We should put an end to so-called 'comprehensive' bills that make it easy to hide wasteful spending projects and job-killing policies. Bills should be written by legislators in committee in plain public view--not written in the Speaker's office, behind closed doors.'" (All emphasis minne.)
- Penny Starr, CNSNews.com, quoting John Boehner

"'Americans have lost trust with their government, which has too often ignored the will of the people in favor of party loyalty and a desire to pass partisan bills at any cost,' said the introduction to that part of the Pledge to America. 'Backroom deals, phantom amendments, and bills that go unread before being forced through Congress have become business as usual. Never before has the need for a new approach to governing been more apparent than under Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership [ARRRRRRRGH!]. Americans are demanding change in the way Congress works, and we are fighting to bring much-needed sunlight to the process and give the American people a greater voice in their Congress.'" (All emphasis mine.)
- Penny Starr, CNSNews.com, quoting the GOP's Pledge to America

$*@!#%*#! HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!

Am I the only one who is outraged by this betrayal?

More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/08/03/the-next-step-after-the-debt-c

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 5.25.13

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|27 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|80 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|60 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|94 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.