Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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?
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?
Nope, the committee will never agree to deep cuts, because cuts would cause a deal will be reached. If they reach a deal, it takes away Obama's only tool to attack the Republicans, a do nothing Congress. The Dems, under no circumstances will compromise.
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?
Keep in mind that the deep cuts that will result from Super Committee disagreement will start after the elections. My guess is that the Committee will not agree on a plan and automatic cuts will begin over a period of ten years. The dramatic cuts will influence the public to push for revenue increases (new taxes) to mitigate the effects of the cuts.
It would be hard to say which direction economic collapse could push the public demand for more or less taxes but it should probably be added to the mix.
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!"?
The whole premise is a joke. Reducing deficit spending is just reducing how much money we are borrowing to pay for things we cannot afford. It does nothing to fix the 15 trillion dollar debt. We should not be running any deficit period, programs and entitlements be damned.
The whole premise is a joke. Reducing deficit spending is just reducing how much money we are borrowing to pay for things we cannot afford. It does nothing to fix the 15 trillion dollar debt. We should not be running any deficit period, programs and entitlements be damned.
Social Security recipients will be happy the hear that.
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?
That is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The President does not have the authority to make such demands on the Congress.
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?
I have heard it isn't "automatic" as some believe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
