PDA

View Full Version : Economics How the Tea Party ‘hobbits’ won the debt fight


Taco John
07-31-2011, 07:49 PM
How the Tea Party ‘hobbits’ won the debt fight

By Marc A. Thiessen, Sunday, July 31, 5:33 PM

The Tea Party came under fire from all sides Friday after House conservatives nearly brought down Speaker John Boehner’s debt-limit bill. John McCain went to the Senate floor to mock Tea Partyers as “hobbits,” and Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen said Tea Party Republicans “are unfit for governing.”

What a difference a weekend makes. The reported debt-limit deal appears to be a victory for the Tea Party. It includes around $1 trillion in spending cuts and creates a special committee of Congress to recommend cuts of $1.2 trillion more. If Congress does not approve those additional cuts by year’s end, automatic spending cuts go into effect. The package sets an important new precedent that debt-limit increases must be “paid for” with commensurate cuts in spending. According to Sen. Rob Portman, a former White House budget director, if we cut a dollar of spending for every dollar we raise the debt limit, we will balance the budget in 10 years — something that even the Paul Ryan budget would not achieve. And all this is accomplished with no tax increases.

The devil is in the details, of course. There are troubling reports that the agreement may disproportionately cut defense spending. Conservatives should ensure that the final deal, which is still being hammered out at the time of this writing, does not gut defense. They should scour the legislation to make certain it lives up to its billing. If it does, the Tea Party has won.

To appreciate the scope of the Tea Party’s victory, consider: When Barack Obama came into office, he went on a bender of government spending. He signed an unprecedented $821 billion stimulus spending bill. His first budget increased federal spending to 27 percent of gross domestic product — the highest level as a share of the economy since World War II. He then proceeded to ram through Congress Obamacare, a massive government intervention that adds $1.4 trillion in new spending over the next decade alone. Democrats openly talked about passing a “second stimulus.” And five months ago Obama submitted a budget to Congress that tripled the national debt, raising it by $10 trillion over the next 10 years.

Today, no one is talking about tripling the national debt or passing a “second stimulus.” Congress is about to cut spending by $2.8 trillion and put us on a trajectory to balance the budget within a decade. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid complained Saturday evening that Congress has raised the debt limit 74 times since 1962 without conditions. He is right. This is happening for the first time in history, thanks to the Tea Party.

Consider that less than a week ago, President Obama addressed the nation, demanding that Congress include higher taxes in any debt-limit deal. According to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, the proposed deal has no tax increases. The Tea Party took tax hikes off the table and held the line — another major victory.

The Tea Party is also winning the battle of ideas. Last week, Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod crowed that the debt-limit battle was shaping up as a “definitional fight” in which voters would see Obama as defending the reasonable center against Republicans who are “pandering to the extremes.” Well, if Axelrod is so confident that Obama is winning this “definitional fight,” why was the White House so adamant about ducking a second round next year? The president said that “the only bottom line that I have is that we extend this debt ceiling through the next election.” If he were winning the argument, he would have been eager to have this fight again just before the next election.

Instead of winning over independents with his calls for a “balanced” approach, the president’s support among independents has collapsed. A Pew poll released last week found that a majority of independents now disapprove of Obama’s job performance for the first time in his presidency. Two months ago, Obama held an 11-point lead over a generic Republican. Today, that lead has vanished. Whatever the president’s strategy was, it failed.

Now comes that hard part: accepting an incomplete victory. Some Tea Party Republicans will be unhappy with the deal because it does not include a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The fight for a balanced budget amendment must go on. But Tea Partyers should recognize just how much Obama and the Democrats caved: $2 trillion in spending cuts. No tax increases. A new precedent that debt-limit hikes must be accompanied by equal or greater cuts in spending. And the potential for a balanced budget in 10 years. That the Tea Party accomplished all this in just six months — at a time when the GOP controls one-half of one-third of the federal government — is remarkable.

The “hobbits” won.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-tea-party-hobbits-won-the-debt-fight/2011/07/31/gIQALMrCmI_story.html

Chiefshrink
07-31-2011, 07:56 PM
Tea Party loses if there is no detailed balanced budget amendment that gets rid of "f'n" baseline budgeting tactics. Start with real "f"'n numbers and real "f'n" cuts IMO or otherwise the "spending insanity" continues plain and simple.

orange
07-31-2011, 08:06 PM
The "Grand Deal" talked about, oh about ten days ago, included $3 trillion to $4 trillion in cuts and $800 billion to $1 trillion in new tax revenue. This deal has - according to your writer - $2 trillion in cuts (p.s. I understand that the Committee CAN put tax revenues in their plan, despite Thiessen's prestidigitation). So for the sake of preserving around a $1 trillion in high-end tax loopholes, possibly only for a few months, the TPers obstinance screwed themselves out of almost $2 trillion in additional cuts.

And Thiessen calls that a "victory." It's pretty clear what his priorities are.

banyon
07-31-2011, 08:11 PM
The "Grand Deal" talked about, oh about ten days ago, included $3 trillion to $4 trillion in cuts and $800 billion to $1 trillion in new tax revenue. This deal has - according to your writer - $2 trillion in cuts (p.s. I understand that the Committee CAN put tax revenues in their plan, despite Thiessen's prestidigitation). So for the sake of preserving around a $1 trillion in high-end tax loopholes, possibly only for a few months, the TPers obstinance screwed themselves out of almost $2 trillion in additional cuts.

And Thiessen calls that a "victory." It's pretty clear what his priorities are.

Wasn't the criticism of the "grand deal" that much of the additional $2 trillion in cuts was just an agreement not to spend planned monies on the wars and call that a savings?

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 08:12 PM
Why does everyone have so much hatred against the Tea Party movement? It started as the fringe left crying about how evil they are and that their legion is nothing but a racist base. When they finally proved that notion wrong by getting elected, the liberal contingents of the media decided to portray them as idiots and morons. They proved that wrong by showing their mettle in negotiation and meeting the expectations of their constituents. Now the middle of the road Republicans want to smear them as well.

Obviously they prove a threat to the standard in the political world. I am not a Tea Partyer, but I am glad they are shaking up the norm in D.C.

orange
07-31-2011, 08:13 PM
Wasn't the criticism of the "grand deal" that much of the additional $2 trillion in cuts was just an agreement not to spend planned monies on the wars and call that a savings?

As I recall, no, that particular criticism was primarily aimed at the early (i.e. before today) versions of Reid's plan. I don't think the "grand deal's" proposed cuts were ever known that specifically.

banyon
07-31-2011, 08:17 PM
As I recall, no, that particular criticism was primarily aimed at the early (i.e. before today) versions of Reid's plan. I don't think the "grand deal's" proposed cuts were ever known that specifically.

I thought you were referring to the "grand deal" as the plan of ten days or so ago, right?

orange
07-31-2011, 08:23 PM
I thought you were referring to the "grand deal" as the plan of ten days or so ago, right?

http://www.abc12.com/story/15058018/why-did-the-obama-boehner-grand-debt-reduction-deal-fail

Taco John
07-31-2011, 08:27 PM
The "Grand Deal" talked about, oh about ten days ago, included $3 trillion to $4 trillion in cuts and $800 billion to $1 trillion in new tax revenue. This deal has - according to your writer - $2 trillion in cuts (p.s. I understand that the Committee CAN put tax revenues in their plan, despite Thiessen's prestidigitation). So for the sake of preserving around a $1 trillion in high-end tax loopholes, possibly only for a few months, the TPers obstinance screwed themselves out of almost $2 trillion in additional cuts.

And Thiessen calls that a "victory." It's pretty clear what his priorities are.

Keeping the balanced budget amendment alive, eliminating tax raises as an option, and getting $3 trillion in cuts isn't a bad outcome. More than any of that, though, is the message they sent to both Republican and Democrat establishments. You can't measure that on paper, but it's damned significant.

banyon
07-31-2011, 08:31 PM
http://www.abc12.com/story/15058018/why-did-the-obama-boehner-grand-debt-reduction-deal-fail

I think we're talking past each other:

The "Grand Deal" talked about, oh about ten days ago, included $3 trillion to $4 trillion in cuts

Then you switched on me:

that particular criticism was primarily aimed at the early (i.e. before today)

My explanation of the criticism should be the same plan the "before today" and "about ten days ago" plan.

orange
07-31-2011, 08:36 PM
Reid's bill all this week included savings from drawing down in Iraq and Afghanistan. And was ridiculed for it. The current version - I'm guessing - does not count that or the numbers would be a lot higher.

I don't think the Boehner/Obama "grand deal" ever counted those numbers.



[edit] in fact: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/22/us/politics/20110722-comparing-deficit-reduction-plans.html?ref=politics I suspect this link will be handy to keep around for the next couple of days.

ROYC75
07-31-2011, 08:38 PM
The "Grand Deal" talked about, oh about ten days ago, included $3 trillion to $4 trillion in cuts and $800 billion to $1 trillion in new tax revenue. This deal has - according to your writer - $2 trillion in cuts (p.s. I understand that the Committee CAN put tax revenues in their plan, despite Thiessen's prestidigitation). So for the sake of preserving around a $1 trillion in high-end tax loopholes, possibly only for a few months, the TPers obstinance screwed themselves out of almost $2 trillion in additional cuts.

And Thiessen calls that a "victory." It's pretty clear what his priorities are.

When you are dealing with Reid & Obama, 2 trillions is better than nothing. IMHO, It won't keep out AAA rating, but it is a start.

Chiefshrink
07-31-2011, 08:40 PM
Why does everyone have so much hatred against the Tea Party movement? It started as the fringe left crying about how evil they are and that their legion is nothing but a racist base. When they finally proved that notion wrong by getting elected, the liberal contingents of the media decided to portray them as idiots and morons. They proved that wrong by showing their mettle in negotiation and meeting the expectations of their constituents. Now the middle of the road Republicans want to smear them as well.

Obviously they prove a threat to the standard in the political world. I am not a Tea Partyer, but I am glad they are shaking up the norm in D.C.

You know all this Wolf but:

Why do teenagers "kick and scream" when you take their phones and cars away and stop loaning them $$ past their own paycheck(that is if they even have a job)when they have been irresponsible??

It's what teenagers do especially immature and irrational teenagers.

Tea Party=Mom & Dad

RINO Repubs= Teenage Son named Mortimer ='my shit doesn't stink but little people do'

Democrats = Teenage Daughter named Anastasia 'I deserve everything and little people are just sooooooooooooooooo irrelevant'.

Bottom line: Mom & Dad step in and take the power and $$ away from their irresponsible kids to teach several points. And this is what "We The People" are attempting to do because we have had Politicians on both sides of the aisle for decades now that see DC as their justified playground for a mid-life crisis return to their irresponsible youthful days(spending frivolously and abusing freedom to the point of a power trip) and actually trying to defend it.:rolleyes:

You might say that DC has been stuck in their Freshman and Soph yrs of college never getting beyond to the point of maturing because unless you are on the "take" in DC you get nowhere.

RINGLEADER
07-31-2011, 08:44 PM
The "Grand Deal" talked about, oh about ten days ago, included $3 trillion to $4 trillion in cuts and $800 billion to $1 trillion in new tax revenue. This deal has - according to your writer - $2 trillion in cuts (p.s. I understand that the Committee CAN put tax revenues in their plan, despite Thiessen's prestidigitation). So for the sake of preserving around a $1 trillion in high-end tax loopholes, possibly only for a few months, the TPers obstinance screwed themselves out of almost $2 trillion in additional cuts.

And Thiessen calls that a "victory." It's pretty clear what his priorities are.

Anyone who believes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a tax increase should know that this new plan also anticipates a massive tax increase on 12/31/2012. So basically, the "victory" includes $3.5 trillion is new taxes and an increase of $7+ trillion in the national debt.

But in the short-term it will be spun as a GOP win because Obama wanted a single vote with tax increases and no Balanced Budget Amendment and ended up with a bifurcated vote with no new taxes and a guarantee of a BBA vote (though I doubt it will pass).

RINGLEADER
07-31-2011, 08:47 PM
You know all this Wolf but:

Why do teenagers "kick and scream" when you take their phones and cars away and stop loaning them $$ past their own paycheck(that is if they even have a job)when they have been irresponsible??

It's what teenagers do especially immature and irrational teenagers.

Tea Party=Mom & Dad

RINO Repubs= Teenage Son named Mortimer ='my shit doesn't stink but little people do'

Democrats = Teenage Daughter named Anastasia 'I deserve everything and little people are just sooooooooooooooooo irrelevant'.

Bottom line: Mom & Dad step in and take the power and $$ away from their irresponsible kids to teach several points. And this is what "We The People" are attempting to do because we have had Politicians on both sides of the aisle for decades now that see DC as their justified playground for a mid-life crisis return to their irresponsible youthful days(spending frivolously and abusing freedom to the point of a power trip) and actually trying to defend it.:rolleyes:

You might say that DC has been stuck in their Freshman and Soph yrs of college never getting beyond to the point of maturing because unless you are on the "take" in DC you get nowhere.

I feel like I just got done watching a Saved By the Bell marathon... ;-)

dirk digler
07-31-2011, 08:48 PM
Anyone who believes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a tax increase should know that this new plan also anticipates a massive tax increase on 12/31/2012. So basically, the "victory" includes $3.5 trillion is new taxes and an increase of $7+ trillion in the national debt.

But in the short-term it will be spun as a GOP win because Obama wanted a single vote with tax increases and no Balanced Budget Amendment and ended up with a bifurcated vote with no new taxes and a guarantee of a BBA vote (though I doubt it will pass).

It sure is interesting seeing both sides bitching about this deal

Usually that means it is a good deal :p

banyon
07-31-2011, 08:50 PM
Anyone who believes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a tax increase should know that this new plan also anticipates a massive tax increase on 12/31/2012. So basically, the "victory" includes $3.5 trillion is new taxes and an increase of $7+ trillion in the national debt).

Where did you hear that?

RINGLEADER
07-31-2011, 08:55 PM
Where did you hear that?

The CBO. And the law Obama signed extending them.

orange
07-31-2011, 08:56 PM
Where did you hear that?

White House Fact Sheet Lays Out Deal Specifics

A White House fact sheet distributed to reporters shortly after the president spoke laid down the specific elements of Sunday night's deal to raise the debt ceiling:


The president will be authorized to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for another increase until 2013.


The first tranche of cuts will come in at nearly $1 trillion. That includes savings of $350 billion from the Base Defense Budget, which will be trimmed based off a review of overall U.S. national security policy.


A bipartisan committee with enhanced procedural authority will be responsible for pinpointing $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction from both entitlements and tax reform, as well as other spending programs.


The committee will have to report out legislation by November 23, 2011.

Congress will be required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011.

The trigger mechanism -- should the committee's recommendations not be acted upon -- will be mandatory spending cuts. Those cuts, which will begin in January 2013, will be split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries and "low-income programs" would be exempted from those cuts.

The fact sheet goes on to note that there is another enforcement mechanism that the president possesses.

"The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester [the trigger mechanism] would go into effect," the fact sheet reads. "These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts."

RINGLEADER
07-31-2011, 08:58 PM
It sure is interesting seeing both sides bitching about this deal

Usually that means it is a good deal :p

It's a nothing deal. Obama has essentially doubled the amount of debt of every president before him combined - not all his fault of course but he certainly isn't doing anything to fix it (if not for the GOP this great accomplishment wouldn't have even been considered)...

EDIT: For the comically-challenged this post was smothered in a thick layer of sarcasm - I find nothing the GOP has done to be "great" or much of an "accomplishment"...

banyon
07-31-2011, 08:59 PM
The CBO. And the law Obama signed extending them.

So you're referring to the Bush tax cuts expiration as the tax increase?

RINGLEADER
07-31-2011, 09:00 PM
White House Fact Sheet Lays Out Deal Specifics

A White House fact sheet distributed to reporters shortly after the president spoke laid down the specific elements of Sunday night's deal to raise the debt ceiling:


The president will be authorized to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for another increase until 2013.


The first tranche of cuts will come in at nearly $1 trillion. That includes savings of $350 billion from the Base Defense Budget, which will be trimmed based off a review of overall U.S. national security policy.


A bipartisan committee with enhanced procedural authority will be responsible for pinpointing $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction from both entitlements and tax reform, as well as other spending programs.


The committee will have to report out legislation by November 23, 2011.

Congress will be required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011.

The trigger mechanism -- should the committee's recommendations not be acted upon -- will be mandatory spending cuts. Those cuts, which will begin in January 2013, will be split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries and "low-income programs" would be exempted from those cuts.

The fact sheet goes on to note that there is another enforcement mechanism that the president possesses.

"The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester [the trigger mechanism] would go into effect," the fact sheet reads. "These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts."

This.

RINGLEADER
07-31-2011, 09:01 PM
So you're referring to the Bush tax cuts expiration as the tax increase?

I think my original post was pretty clear...

banyon
07-31-2011, 09:07 PM
I think my original post was pretty clear...

I would assume that in the December vote on Committee recommendations, the Republicans will just hold Obama hostage again and demand the Bush tax cuts be extended again. Is there something in the bill that prevents them from doing that?

Or I guess they could hold up some other important legislation and demand that too, right?

RINGLEADER
07-31-2011, 09:12 PM
I would assume that in the December vote on Committee recommendations, the Republicans will just hold Obama hostage again and demand the Bush tax cuts be extended again. Is there something in the bill that prevents them from doing that?

Or I guess they could hold up some other important legislation and demand that too, right?

Well, at the risk of sounding partisan, what you say is true because for some reason Obama really seems to fold when he's confronted with hard political choices on budgeting issues. Although I doubt there is much he has to trade with at this point - or much he thinks he can get, but who knows.

ClevelandBronco
07-31-2011, 09:13 PM
It sure is interesting seeing both sides bitching about this deal

Usually that means it is a good deal :p

First off, if you think the Republicans and democrats are two sides working against each other in Washington, you're a ****ing idiot.

dirk digler
07-31-2011, 09:17 PM
I would assume that in the December vote on Committee recommendations, the Republicans will just hold Obama hostage again and demand the Bush tax cuts be extended again. Is there something in the bill that prevents them from doing that?



Actually no. That decision won't come until Dec 2012, not this year. He is going to hold on to that card for a long time.

banyon
07-31-2011, 09:19 PM
Actually no. That decision won't come until Dec 2012, not this year. He is going to hold on to that card for a long time.

So Orange's dates on the White House fact sheet are wrong?

RINGLEADER
07-31-2011, 09:22 PM
So Orange's dates on the White House fact sheet are wrong?

No, I think he is correct. They expire at the end of next year. While I'm not in favor of across-the-board tax increases, it was definitely a political calculation on his part (which is neither surprising, nor particularly out of the ordinary)...

dirk digler
07-31-2011, 09:25 PM
So Orange's dates on the White House fact sheet are wrong?

I guess I am missing it. Congress has to vote on the commission's recommendations by the end of this year. The Bush tax cuts expire 1-1-2013 and Obama is using that as leverage since he can veto it even if he is not re-elected.

RINGLEADER
07-31-2011, 09:30 PM
I guess I am missing it. Congress has to vote on the commission's recommendations by the end of this year. The Bush tax cuts expire 1-1-2013 and Obama is using that as leverage since he can veto it even if he is not re-elected.

Now I understand what you're saying! Duh!

I don't think that factors in (though I could be wrong) because this deal evidently locks in the cuts if there isn't agreement to what the commission comes up with. There's nothing really to "bargain" over...they'll either vote in agreement with the commission or they won't, in which case the cuts included in this deal become operative...

But again, I could be wrong!

dirk digler
07-31-2011, 09:34 PM
Now I understand what you're saying! Duh!

I don't think that factors in (though I could be wrong) because this deal evidently locks in the cuts if there isn't agreement to what the commission comes up with. There's nothing really to "bargain" over...they'll either vote in agreement with the commission or they won't, in which case the cuts included in this deal become operative...

But again, I could be wrong!

It does factor in. If the commission doesn't do any tax reform or raise any revenue then he will veto any extension of the Bush tax cuts. That has nothing to do with the triggers if they fail to get a deal.

The Enforcement Mechanism Complements the Forcing Event Already In Law – the Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts – To Create Pressure for a Balanced Deal: The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts.

Chiefshrink
07-31-2011, 09:35 PM
I feel like I just got done watching a Saved By the Bell marathon... ;-)

No sh**!!ROFL

Bewbies
07-31-2011, 09:38 PM
I don't see any chance that Obama extends Bush tax cuts. If he's won he'll have done it focused on his "balanced" approach, if he loses why the F would he help out the people who took away his power?

banyon
07-31-2011, 09:40 PM
It does factor in. If the commission doesn't do any tax reform or raise any revenue then he will veto any extension of the Bush tax cuts. That has nothing to do with the triggers if they fail to get a deal.

Eh, they can just do what they did last time and tie it to the budget or unemployment benefits, or whatever the next hostage target is. Or Obama will cave on the commission vote because he's AFRAID of the automatic trigger cuts.

You make it sound like Obama is willing to stand up to someone. He isn't.

orange
08-01-2011, 01:51 PM
The gap between the Super Committee vote and the onset of the trigger cuts is deliberate.

The super committee established under the still-to-be-passed debt ceiling deal has been granted immense powers to make its recommendations law. But that doesn't mean grand bargain of sorts is summarily off the table, even if the 12 committee members get stuck or Congress ends up rejecting their suggestions.

According to the structure of the debt ceiling deal, lawmakers will have another year to find approximately $1.5 trillion in cuts through normal procedures, before so-called triggers go into effect to achieve those cuts on behalf of hesitant lawmakers.

"If the committee deadlocks or they put something out that doesn't pass Congress ... before the [trigger] hit they could pass another package of equal savings," said a White House official during a briefing on Sunday night. "So it puts pressure on people. The trigger is looming."

"Now, you don't have the benefit of fast-track authority at that point," the official added, referencing the procedural powers that the super committee would enjoy. "It has to go through regular order. But [at that point] you can resuscitate what Speaker [John Boehner] and the President were doing. They can come to that deal, get that passed and that would avoid the [triggers], or [they could do the] Gang of Six [deal]."

The several paths to further deficit reduction mean the political conversation could very well revolve around the topics of entitlement and tax reform for the next year and a half -- sucking the oxygen away from other issues. Some lawmakers may end up passing on the super committee's recommendations, believing they can get a better deal down in the next year. That could mean the main forces affected by the potential trigger -- the defense lobby and health care industry -- will have extra time to engage in a lobbying campaign to ensure that their priorities aren't threatened.

Which means the Super Committee is as pointless as the BBA vote, really. There's no way its report gets adopted. Just one more mask.


http://www.tenchedesigns.com/wp-content/uploads/Kabuki%20Mask.jpg

Calcountry
08-01-2011, 04:40 PM
Why does everyone have so much hatred against the Tea Party movement? It started as the fringe left crying about how evil they are and that their legion is nothing but a racist base. When they finally proved that notion wrong by getting elected, the liberal contingents of the media decided to portray them as idiots and morons. They proved that wrong by showing their mettle in negotiation and meeting the expectations of their constituents. Now the middle of the road Republicans want to smear them as well.

Obviously they prove a threat to the standard in the political world. I am not a Tea Partyer, but I am glad they are shaking up the norm in D.C.Pray for all those in authority over us, I know I have been.

Calcountry
08-01-2011, 04:41 PM
The gap between the Super Committee vote and the onset of the trigger cuts is deliberate.

The super committee established under the still-to-be-passed debt ceiling deal has been granted immense powers to make its recommendations law. But that doesn't mean grand bargain of sorts is summarily off the table, even if the 12 committee members get stuck or Congress ends up rejecting their suggestions.

According to the structure of the debt ceiling deal, lawmakers will have another year to find approximately $1.5 trillion in cuts through normal procedures, before so-called triggers go into effect to achieve those cuts on behalf of hesitant lawmakers.

"If the committee deadlocks or they put something out that doesn't pass Congress ... before the [trigger] hit they could pass another package of equal savings," said a White House official during a briefing on Sunday night. "So it puts pressure on people. The trigger is looming."

"Now, you don't have the benefit of fast-track authority at that point," the official added, referencing the procedural powers that the super committee would enjoy. "It has to go through regular order. But [at that point] you can resuscitate what Speaker [John Boehner] and the President were doing. They can come to that deal, get that passed and that would avoid the [triggers], or [they could do the] Gang of Six [deal]."

The several paths to further deficit reduction mean the political conversation could very well revolve around the topics of entitlement and tax reform for the next year and a half -- sucking the oxygen away from other issues. Some lawmakers may end up passing on the super committee's recommendations, believing they can get a better deal down in the next year. That could mean the main forces affected by the potential trigger -- the defense lobby and health care industry -- will have extra time to engage in a lobbying campaign to ensure that their priorities aren't threatened.

Which means the Super Committee is as pointless as the BBA vote, really. There's no way its report gets adopted. Just one more mask.


http://www.tenchedesigns.com/wp-content/uploads/Kabuki%20Mask.jpgDude, the titanic is sinking and congress is fiddling on the deck. Isn't it great music?

Donger
08-01-2011, 05:03 PM
I guess "terrorists" is worse than "hobbits"?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists,” according to several sources in the room.

Biden’s office declined to comment about what the vice president said inside the closed-door session.

Earlier in the day, Biden told Senate Democrats that Republican leaders have “guns to their heads” in trying to negotiate deals.

Chocolate Hog
08-01-2011, 05:16 PM
Joe Biden got 0% in New Hampshire. Who the fuck thought it'd be a good idea to make him VP? Oh nevermind.

Taco John
08-01-2011, 06:26 PM
This thing is far from over. They're going to do everything they can to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and the debt commissars that they are putting in power will most definitely come back with recommendations to raise taxes, er revenues - and the Krauthammers and Kristols and McCains of the party will be quick to want to surrender in order to do everything they can to preserve military spending.

mlyonsd
08-01-2011, 06:42 PM
I wonder if Biden considers the 90 some democrats that voted nay today as terrorists.

ROYC75
08-01-2011, 06:59 PM
I guess "terrorists" is worse than "hobbits"?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists,” according to several sources in the room.

Biden’s office declined to comment about what the vice president said inside the closed-door session.

Earlier in the day, Biden told Senate Democrats that Republican leaders have “guns to their heads” in trying to negotiate deals.


More damage control, WOA is Me, we didn't get what we wanted so we can blame the R's, err Tea Party people for holding us politicians up and making us work on Sat & Sun.

Lie & deflect, get the damage control out ASAP, this is all the politicians do anymore. Cry about it and let public know about what spoiled bunch of brats we politicians are anymore.

All politicians stink when they only have their own interest or party's interest in mind.

ROYC75
08-01-2011, 07:00 PM
I wonder if Biden considers the 90 some democrats that voted nay today as terrorists.

He should, they are evil people out to ruin his & Obama's re-election campaign.

Chiefshrink
08-02-2011, 09:19 AM
This thing is far from over. They're going to do everything they can to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and the debt commissars that they are putting in power will most definitely come back with recommendations to raise taxes, er revenues - and the Krauthammers and Kristols and McCains of the party will be quick to want to surrender in order to do everything they can to preserve military spending.

BINGO:thumb: Like I said in another thread this special committe commission of 6, 3 from both sides of the aisle is nothing more than a political tool to avoid and go around "We The People" (a la Tea Party) and also a message to the "We The People" to STFD and STFU !!!!

You just watch who B & M appoint for the Repub side. It sure in the hell won't be any die-hard conservatives like DeMint,Paul,or Sessions.

Guru
08-02-2011, 09:43 AM
The tea party didn't win shit.

LOCOChief
08-02-2011, 10:14 AM
LOL at anyone the doesn't realize that we've ALL LOST. Everyone will eventually come around because ultimately we stand to lose much, much more.

There are obvious fixes that even the most partisan of us can come together and agree on, but you'll never see anyone in Washington stand behind those "obvious fixes" Too corrupt for too long.

Guru
08-02-2011, 10:15 AM
LOL at anyone the doesn't realize that we've ALL LOST. Everyone will eventually come around because ultimately we stand to lose much, much more.

There are obvious fixes that even the most partisan of us can come together and agree on, but you'll never see anyone in Washington stand behind those "obvious fixes" Too corrupt for too long.

No. Stop making sense. That shit doesn't fly around here.:doh!:

Jenson71
08-02-2011, 03:01 PM
BINGO:thumb: Like I said in another thread this special committe commission of 6, 3 from both sides of the aisle is nothing more than a political tool to avoid and go around "We The People" (a la Tea Party) and also a message to the "We The People" to STFD and STFU !!!!

You just watch who B & M appoint for the Repub side. It sure in the hell won't be any die-hard conservatives like DeMint,Paul,or Sessions.

Tea Party isn't much for compromising. Best to leave them out of committees that demand it.

orange
08-02-2011, 03:07 PM
There are obvious fixes that even the most partisan of us can come together and agree on...

Is that so?!? I'm all ears...

Clear the decks, everyone. LOCOChief is about to post a thread... (perhaps his first?)

BucEyedPea
08-02-2011, 06:23 PM
There are obvious fixes that even the most partisan of us can come together and agree on, but you'll never see anyone in Washington stand behind those "obvious fixes" Too corrupt for too long.

I annoint you Bilbo Baggins.


http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/bilbo-baggins.jpg

Taco John
08-02-2011, 06:42 PM
I'm looking forward to seeing which Tea Party congressmen get to be appointed as one of the debt commissars. This should be fun.