Republicans will own the supercommittee

My previous post about the supercommittee covered how it was created and underlined the absurd, unprecedented powers the 12 members held in determining the future of U.S. spending.

Now that you know the foundation for the committee, it's time to meet each member. I planned on breaking every person down, but CNN already did that so I figure I will link to them as a kudos or a digital high-five.

Meet the committee! (CNN-style)

This website does a great job at breaking down some of the statements supercommittee members have said regarding revenue increases (higher taxes) and their stance on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. It's a bit skewed toward the Democrats because they have historically defended the big three of government programs.

The reason websites like strengthensocialsecurity.org have cropped up is because the supercommittee has to debate how they want to reform Social Security, military spending, Medicare, Medicaid and tax increases (I'm not going to call them increase revenues anymore. We are all adults here).

You, what's going to happen here, and why the voting records of each member is extremely important, is that the Democrats and Republicans of the committee are going to side with each other 6-6.

The Democrats (hopefully) will refuse to alter Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid either because the Republicans refuse to budge on something, or because the cuts are too strict. While this is the Democrats hard-line stance, they won't prove to be a resilient as the Republicans because the Democrats showed they don't have the courage to stand up to the Republicans during the debt ceiling debate. They caved under pressure. Maybe caved is too kind a word.

Let's go with collapsed. Yeah, collapsed. The debt ceiling plan didn't have any revenue increases and did not even complete the intended goal of extended the debt ceiling until 2013. It's the reason why we have the supercommittee now.

The Republicans will refuse to increase taxes on anyone, especially the "job creators", or the richest 2 percent of Americans. And by refuse, I mean Republicans have taken the same position a small child wants when you take them to the store. They are sitting on the floor with their feet and arms crossed while contorting their face into a combination of slimy satisfaction and uncompromising defiance. The only way to get them to do what you want is to drag them kicking and screaming to the compromise table.

SO...back to my point about voting 6-6. Once the Republicans and Democrats have decided they can't find a deal, and they will at some point even if they don't announce it, a political power play to get one person to change sides will occur.

This is a good sign if you are a Republican. In the last few political battles, Democrats have time and time and TIME again backed off amid Republican pressure. See the debt ceiling issue I mentioned above. See the battle over funding the Federal Aviation Administration, which ended ONLY after a two-week shutdown that could have been avoided in the first place. The FAA almost had ANOTHER shut down (which would put people out of work and cause the government to lose revenue) because of our own Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK!

The Senate, which favors a Majority of Democrats, had to appease Coburn by dropping a section of the FAA/Highway funding bill that would make states spend 10 percent on bike paths and pedestrian safety and landscaping.

Sure, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are a bit bigger and more popular than bike paths, but I haven't seen a Democrat stand up for his principles in the face of the non-compromising political evil that are corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats.

So, back to my original point regarding the supercommittee and the inevitable 6-6 stalemate. The Democrats have already proven that they will compromise on their big issues, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And other things like infrastructure spending and employment benefits and poor and middle-class tax breaks.

All the Republicans have to do is get ONE Democrat to join their side, and they can exert their political will on the committee. This means large spending cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. This means more spending cuts on government programs that protect consumers, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, which protect citizens from pollution and unsafe factory workings by regulating what businesses can and can't do when it comes to pollution and waste.

Sure, Democrats could get one Republican to join their side, but they have shown a complete lack of spine to accomplish such a feat.

This also means very few, if any, tax increases. Sounds like a good thing? Well, it isn't. Without revenue increases to help pay for our multiple military conflicts and wars, we cannot afford the things the government offers us that we enjoy or take for granted. Such as public transportation, consumer safety, public schools. Or what about the United States Postal Service, which is about to go bankrupt. (Granted, this is an issue that needs legitimate reform, but it needs funding from Congress to complete those changes).

Watch what happens. The committee will release what they will call a great compromise. but if you look closely, you will see that it is a compromise in name only and potentially a political and economic failure in substance.

What do you think?

What is the super committee?

In about 6 days — after the splendor of college football and its dressings of school fanaticism loyalty has dwindled — a new game will take place on a different field. A game where the person with the most points doesn't always win, and a field that doesn't have nice hash marks to track progress.

Good ol' political committee meetings.

Two teams of six will be meet to determine how the United States will cut up to $1.5 trillion dollars from its federal spending. They are being given an absurd amount of power to determine the future of U.S. spending for the next ten years. I don't know if the power is unprecedented, but it sure as hell is ridiculous. But more on that on in minute.

This will be the first meeting of the super committee that was created after President Barack Obama and the House of Representatives reached a "compromise" debt deal.

This committee is compromised of these fine people below (Democrats in blue, Republicans in red):

They look like they know what they are doing, right? I hope so, because they have to make a decision, or a set of triggers will take effect and cut $1.2 trillion balanced between defense and non-defense spending.

But, I'm getting a little ahead of myself there. I will be discussing the triggers soon, as well as exactly who these people are, but the focus right now is: What is the super committee?

Now, it is easy to say — as I did earlier — that the committee is a "bipartisan" group of people that are going to come up with a debt deal to further increase the debt ceiling while making the spending cuts mandated by the Aug. 1 deal. Which means for every dollar of debt ceiling increase, the committee has to cut funding somewhere to equal the ceiling increase.

So like any other committee, the politicians will meet, debate and ultimately decide on a deal to send to the executive office and congress. So they almost operate like any other congressional committee. In fact, because the committee is made up of senate and house members, it is commonly referred to as a joint committee.

However, this committee is a bit different. This is where the "super" comes in.

Once this committee has decided on what they want to vote through, the bill will go to congress for an up or a down vote. There are no amendments allowed, no filibuster opportunities and no House majority of the majority blocks.

I'm all for creating committees to take work together and create legislation, however I am completely against a small group of our elected officials having the power to create legislation that is effectively debate-proof. Once this committee decides on something (or one of the republicans or democrats defects and votes for their opposing party) it will be sent to Congress. Some may argue that it streamlines the process and this — combined with the pending triggers — will light a fire under the ass of the politicians to actually do something.

But, once that bill moves through, it puts EVERY OTHER PERSON we elected into a weird position. The people that moved into committees that oversee things like defense spending and entitlement programs will watch their authority usurped as a bill that they can't debate may or may not cut their spending. If that bill goes against their beliefs, they only get two choices — yes or no.



What this does is consolidate the authority over the purse strings of the United States to twelve people. Then, when these twelve people finally agree on something, they get to go to everyone else and say, "Are you with us or against us."

And, I bet any of you money, that this bill will be sent to congress right before the triggers take effect. That means the politicians will have to choose between what this committee decided, or let the unbiased triggers cut without consideration of a programs current budget or the current financial and political climate. What happens if both of those decisions are wrong? Too bad! No debate or no amendments.


While our political leaders may say this committee will create compromise, it will not. Limiting discussion limits compromise. I get frustrated with political maneuvering and our politicians not making decisions, but I would rather everyone we elect have an opportunity to contribute to the discussion of future tax increases or budget cuts.

So what is the super committee? It's an all-too powerful group of people limiting our congress from acting the way it was intended, which is fervent debate by ALL of our elected officials.

What about you? Do you think the committee has too much power? Not enough power?

Obligatory first post

To help keep me focused on my task at hand during this blog, I'm doing the typical "this is what this blog is about" posts so I can have something to reference when I decide to rant or go on tangents.

I have a tendency to do that sometimes. Hopefully, if do rant or decide to travel along tangents, I will look back on this post and bring the discussion back to my task at hand.


Onto to the actual task:

This blog is an effort to dissect and deconstruct the national debt argument happening in Washington D.C.

I hope to cover issues like the supercommittee, cuts to medicare and social security, the upcoming triggers that will take effect if no decision is made and any other debt-related news that surfaces the rest of the year.

The reason I decided to this: I don't really know what is better for the country, and I don't trust the politicians — with all of their lobbyists and promises – to know what is right either.


Since I can't trust the politicians to do the right thing, I will fix my problem.

I'm working on the first post to fix that problem right now; I look forward to discussing this important, controversial issue with you.