Possible Supercommittee outcomes

Supercommittee members

CNN’s Jack Cafferty is asking “how we see the supercommittee concluding its business?”

The super committee would set a figure for increased tax revenue; but then individual House and Senate committees would have to craft the legislation. In an election year? Yeah, that’ll happen.

This is outrageous. If it happens, it would make the super committee just one more group of politicians to kick the can down the road when it comes to our nearly $15 trillion national debt. And we can’t afford that.

Oh yeah – and remember that automatic trigger that’s supposed to go into effect if the super committee can’t agree to cuts? Well, our lawmakers are trying to weasel out of that one too.

One super committee member says it is “very likely” Congress will try to dismantle those across-the-board cuts to defense and entitlement spending.

All the while, both sides are busy trading accusations about who would be to blame if the super committee fails.

So how do you see the supercommittee saga coming to a conclusion?

  1. They can’t reach a deal and the automatic cuts go into effect.
  2. They come to a deal and actually reduce spending.
  3. They can’t reach a deal, kick the can down the road, reverse the $1.2 trillion automatic spending cuts, and Democrats essentially get a clean debt ceiling raise.

67 Replies to “Possible Supercommittee outcomes”

  1. Arrowhead

    The GOP got played on this one. Pure and simple. I can’t believe Boehner and leadership would allow such drastic cuts to even be possible to our military.

  2. Anonymous

    Here is what Noem said about the supercommittee cuts to defence the other day.

    ?If the joint select committee doesn?t come up with a bill, then we go into sequestration, which includes huge cuts for defense,? she said.

    ?The Army doesn?t have enough projects for major cuts, so you are looking at personnel (as a prime target).?

    Under that scenario, the Army would cut 200,000 soldiers ? and that?s only one military branch, Noem said.

    ?We can?t afford to have that happen,? she said.

    The reduced manpower could have a particularly devastating effect on those in the service planning a military career, Noem said.

    ?It?s not right,? she said.


    Then WHY did you vote for it?

    As a conservative and Noem supporter it is so upsetting that she would encourage other conservatives to support this bill because of her leadership position rather than lead a fight to do what is right.

  3. J Rae

    But on the plus side, the real master of the super committee, Grover Norquist, will win!

    So who else voted for Grover?

  4. J Rae

    So raising revenues doesn’t seem to be listed on your menu, but then the leaders did say that they wouldn’t accept a 10 cuts to 1 tax increase deal…so you might be right.

    Stace, do your entitlements get hit with Tricare etc…

    I know that the military cuts are key, what other cuts take place and who else takes a hit for Grover?

    1. Stace Nelson

      J Rae,

      We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. If we could tax ourselves out of our massive debt problem, CA, NY, NJ, etc. would have already done so with theirs.

      I do not have entitlements or TRICARE, I have FEP Blue Cross & Blue Shield that I pay for.

      In my experience, the fat is in the civilian agencies that support the military, not the active duty military.

    2. duggersd

      J Rae, can you tell me one time in which the spending cuts ACTUALLY went into effect when a deal was made that included raising taxes? I would not have taken that deal either because the spending cuts down the road would never happen. However, I would consider a 10 – 1 cuts to taxes if the cuts take effect first and the tax increase is down the road. But that would never happen either.

  5. Bill Fleming

    J Rae, I’ve been hearing a little buzz among some Repubs that signing Grover’s pledge might be unconstitutional because it overrides Congress’ authority to levy taxes. Thus a pledge to Grover never to raise taxes is perhaps a violation of the Congressional oath to uphold the Constitution.

    Seems in a pinch one might have to decide which oath is the most important, the one to the people to uphold the Constitution, or the one to Grover what’s-his-name.

    Could it be that some people are finally coming to their senses?

    1. J Rae

      Thanks Bill, that does bring up an interesting question of which members of Congress signed an oath that superseded the Constitution of these United States of America. Maybe Grover could release that list of elected officials.

      I would think that all of the Constitutional scholars of the Tea Party, like Michele Bachmann, would have caught this a long time ago.

      Didn’t Grover also say that he wanted to shrink the U.S. government to where it was small enough to flush down the toilet? Surprised that the supporters of the military, a part of the government, weren’t offended then.

      Of course, Grover had to have known this as well.

      What do you suppose Ronald Reagan would have told Grover each of the times he had to raise taxes?

    2. J Rae

      Do you suppose any of those who have sworn allegiance to Mr. Norquist will have the courage to stand up to him?

      Of course, in all fairness, it was Tea Party Republican, Pat Toomey, who discovered this key to the Norquist pledge.

      Keep in mind, Toomey is not proposing raising taxes, he is simply pointing out that he is advocating that the Bush tax cuts expire in accordance to the date established in law by the Republican President and the Republican controlled congress.

      This could be fun to watch play out. Pass the popcorn.

      1. BF

        Yes, J Rae, Toomey anticipates the expiration of the Bush tax cuts as a matter of law. Taxes will go up from their present level to the 2000 level automatically if congress doesn’t act.

        As long as the new tax rates are set somewhere below the 2000 level rates, it would not constitute a tax increase.

        It’s a chink in the Norquist armor and a way to both exercise your power as a congressman and still honor the pledge to Norquist.

        Very resourceful solution.

    3. Troy Jones

      Huh? I dont understand how this is unconstitutional. Candidates make campaign promises all the time. They also break them (sometimes because new info comes available and sometimes because they never meant to keep them). But making promises, keeping them, or breaking them are not Constitutional issues. Character or ethic questions, maybe. But not Constitutional.

      1. BF

        The idea, Troy, is, if you as a congressman take pledge not to levy taxes, you have, in essence, promised to abstain from doing one of your jobc as a congressman.

        If enough of you take that pledge and keep it, you have usurped Congress’ ability to exercise one of its Constitutional powers.

        Therefore, your oath to the would be usurper would stand in conflict with your oath to defend the Constitution.

        1. Troy Jones

          This is a stretch and a red herring. This pledge is a form of campaign promise. And, a member who keeps (or doesn’t) the pledge via their vote on a matter is exercising their Constitutional oath.

          1. BF

            Not if they put their pledge to Norquist before their duty to the nation, Troy. That’s the whole issue in a nutshell. If they are doing that, it’s not a red herring.

            1. BF

              I really think this could be the Achilles Heel of the freshman Tea Party class in Congress. To mix ancient history metaphors a little, it’s time for them to cross the Rubicon into the Elysian Fields of political enlightenment.

              Meanwhile, I notice Nancy Pelosi has raised around $24 million so far. Time to start girding your loins, boys and girls.

              The Tea Party is over.

              Bring on Dionysus.

                    1. duggersd

                      43 comments. 12 by either Bill Fleming or BF, one in the same. Several replying to himself, displaying a split personality. Talk about an ego! And the best he can do is throw an insult, displaying the level of maturity I expect from him. I guess he can go back to his own blog.

                  1. Anon by any other name...

                    Don’t you know that BF is well known as being synonymous with the world famous Bill Fleming? I think it is trademarked, copyrighted, and scribbled in crayon on a bathroom wall someplace as such.

                    1. Anon by any other name...

                      I am sorry, clearly you mistook me for someone who cares to interact with you.

                      DuggerSD has demonstrated he is a kind soul and someone to be respected.

                      You have repeatedly demonstrated yourself to be an insufferable vile creature to be pitied for your blithe ignorance. Now please remove yourself from the bottom of my shoe.

                    2. Bill Fleming

                      I’m sorry too, if you didn’t want to end up in the muck you shouldn’t have stepped in it brother. Now look. You’re a BF sandwich. Tsk. You guys never learn.

  6. Anonymous

    Increase tax and have a excuse………….. Is that planning or is it a fluke? A socialistic control group like the idea of how to increase taxes yet look clean. How many elected officials have the courage to say no to the things that are killing the USA. The D and R are people who have no courage to fix only keep the $$$$$$$$$$ flowing to the friends of a few…….

  7. springer

    Somehow signing a pledge to not raise taxes does not raise near to usurping Congress’ authority to raise taxes. Every Congress person has to examine his own thoughts as to whether he votes for increased taxes or not; people renig on their promises all the time if they feel it is the right thing to do.

    And looking at the time that the great O has thumbed his nose at the Constitution gives libs no cover in this issue. Obama even stated during the debates that the Constitution should be fluid or something like that, that it should be able to be changed with the times; too bad that we didn’t realize how that really showed his true beliefs and subsequent actions.

    1. Anon

      Well said, spot on.

      In Pres. Obama’s defense, he warned us that he was going to change America… The problem is that people didn’t realize that those changes were inline with the thinking of the many Marxist & socialist that he was connected to.

    2. BF

      “Every Congress person has to examine his own thoughts as to whether he votes for increased taxes or not…”

      In theory, yes.

      But if instead, they hold to their pledge to Norquist as a first priority… as a personal matter of honor, integrity and principle ? as Grover expects them to do ? they have surrendered their individuality in favor of an unconstitutional, group-think, anti-tax, Congressional movement.

      That is precisely the razor’s edge the current GOP member of Congress are walking.


      1. BF

        …further, the very existence of the super committee is evidence that the members of congress have already surrendered their individual responsibility in the matter.

      2. springer

        There is nothing unconstitutional about being anti-tax. Congress’ authority to impose taxes is only that, an authority to do so, but that does not mean that it can increase taxes against the people’s will. It is responsible for that action, but not mandated to do it. Big difference.

        1. veldy

          Correct, red herring doesn’t even begin to describe the reaction of some to this. One must understand though, that to the left “tax increase good, spending cut bad”

  8. Troy Jones

    Here is what I think will happen. The committee will collapse and we will be back to where we were in August. Except now, the pressure will be more intense for both sides. The party who has their base most willing to compromise will win. The party who has to worry about their base will be killed in 2012.

      1. Troy Jones

        Yes and no. Extreme too often is code of “disagree with me.” What I am saying is the one who can get their base to compromise/give on certain heretofore untouchables, will have the upper hand in everything (politics, ability to win for their core). The one who paints themselves into a box will suffer on both ends. Their base will be disapointed and the middle will consider them irrelevant.

        1. Anon by any other name...

          Isn’t that what President Bush did with the Democratic Congress. How well did that work out for him? The USA? The GOP? He compromised, Dodd/Frank gutted the banking protections, racked up billions in debt, Pres. Bush gets the blame, and Americans see Democrats & Republicans as the same.

          Brilliant Democratic plan.

          Alternative, have Republicans stick with Republican principles, fight for real cuts, fight to repeal Obamacare, fight to get our country back on stable ground.

          1. Troy Jones

            I hear you. And there is wisdom in your comments.

            The thing is the broad public will not tolerate three outcomes:

            1) Across the board cuts.
            2) Nothing done to cut the deficit and restoring fiscal sanity.
            3) Intransigence

            Politics is the art of the possible and compromise is not always a sacrifice of principles. We can’t get all we believe is necessary so long as Obama is in the WH and Dem’s control the Senate. Right now, people are suffering and a half a loaf is better than nothing right now. Show the GOP is realistic today and they will get more support for round two after the election. Demand all or nothing and we will not get the reinforcements we will need in the future. The problem we are in is now 3+ years old, the actions of Obama made it worse. It will take five years of steady progress to right this mess. I want to start now.

            1. Anon by any other name...

              Politics are what got us in the mess we are in, good Sir. History is rife with examples of where the decisive uncompromising actions of a few carried the day for good. The immortal pen is waiting to scribe those actions of those with courage to learn from the mistakes of our immedidate past. Stay the course Republicans, stand for something or be dismissed yet again as irrelavent for standing for nothing.

              1. Troy Jones

                You are right so long as you think across the board cuts are good for the nation, will make things better economically over the next 18 months, and the improve GOP prospects for taking over the Senate and White House in 2012.

                There is no way the Dem. Senate and Obama White House will accept the GOP demands carte blanche’. If across the board cuts fail any of these tests, we will stand on principles that will only extend the trauma (Dem Senate and four more years of Obama).

                Do you support across the board cuts as required under the August legislation? Yes or no?

                If yes, and it occurs, I hope you are right.

                If no, do you think the Dem Senate and Obama will accept the GOP proposal carte blanche?

                If you don’t want across the baord cuts and don’t think the Dem’s will accept the GOP proposal without compromise, how do we get anything without compromise?

                Love to hear your logic. I’m open to your view as there is some wisdom to your aspiration and principle.

                1. Anon by any other name...

                  The logic, Mr. Jones, is that previous adventures in compromising has cost the nation dealry and the politicial prospects of Republicans. Repeating such foolish ventures would surely reap further failures on both fronts.

                  A benchmark of 9-11 should be looked at and government agencies paired back to those levels effective yesterday. Serious consideration should be given to abolishing at least two failed government agencies of Dept of Ed & Energy.

                  A concerted effort, like during other periods of American financial weakness, should be made to deport the 10-12 million illegal aliens that are draining billions from our economy through social programs and the actual sending of much needed monies out of our economy.

    1. Troy Jones


      You might be right. Past experience makes this likely. However, I think the GOP has learned something from the past. Based on what I’m gleaming from what is happening is the GOP is leading with revenue increases coupled with tax reform to occur in the near-term out years with significant current discretionary expenditure cuts, some defense cuts, and long-term entitlement reform.

      1. veldy

        Troy I hep you’re right about the “learned something”. The real problem is that after all this garbage is sorted through(cuts over however many years), future Congresses are not bound by any agreement, and we could well be looking at this all over again in a year or two.

  9. Anonymous

    Is anyone else surprised that Noem has gone against the grain of most conservative policies and is already acting like a good old boy?

    Farmsubsidies, subsidized crop insurance, EAS, debt cieling, super committee and I could go on and on.

    1. Anonymous

      No town halls, exclusive round table discussions, staffers only accepting pre submitted questions, single issue hearings on pine beetles and education rather than medicare and debt ceiling deals, lots of time fundraising but not anytime for town halls. I’m kind of sick of it and I’m really upset that she isn’t speaking out against the “secret farm bill.”

  10. feasant

    It is time to stop the BS and make some cuts, you can’t find something to cut in all that red tape? What about all the wasted money on high fences around some of these airports, the gate is left open all the time?

  11. Electrifying South Dakota

    I appreciate the sentiments and insightful observations of my fellow republicans, but the solution appears to rest somewhere in the middle, rather than exclusively on the right or the left. Additionally, in so far as conservative members of congress like to invoke the memory of our beloved ‘Gipper,’ they simply fail to acknowledge that President Reagan was not averse to finding a common ground solution. Does wreckless and wasteful use of tax dollars exist, you bet! Would Reagan be upset, you better believe he would. However, is it proper to starve the beast? President Reagan knew that it wasn’t, and did something about it when he reached across the aisle to Speaker O’Neil. As a coalition, they curbed waste, but as a coalition they also raised revenue. I don’t think anyone wants to see us go back to 90% income tax rates for the wealthy (yes, they did exist prior to the election of J.F.K.), but the low capital gains tax rate is killing the U.S. Treasury and flogging our nation’s credit. During Reagan’s time in office he shamed the tax code for allowing a wealthy American to pay less taxes than a bus driver, and acknowledged that the cause of this disparity is our low capital gains tax rate. Wisely, Reagan closed the hole, and we need to follow suit.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.