The 12 members of Congress on the “super committee” appointed to resolve the enormous federal spending issue are philosophically miles apart, a new analysis shows. But an agreement, with no tax hikes still is possible.
When it was up to the Republican and the Democrat leaders of both congressional chambers to choose members for the committee, only a spark of hope flickered that an agreement could be reached by the Thanksgiving deadline. The outlook for agreement is still nearly as unlikely as, say, the prospect that President Obama will suddenly turn into a free-market capitalist.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said from the first that he would not pick anyone who would support increasing taxes. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in her usual vague attempts at communicating, said those at the negotiating table should “share the values of the American people.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sounded a bit more optimistic that some compromise might be reached.
Th National Taxpayers Union (NTU), the non-partisan research organization with 362,000 members, Aug. 17 released a study of the “super committee” panel’s sponsorship of past bills in each of their congressional chambers.
Analyzed were legislative bills the members of the super committee have sponsored or cosponsored over the years, using the National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s “BillTally” system. It shows how members voted on spending programs of the recent past.
“The 12 panel members have legislative agendas whose individual impact on the budget could vary widely, from an annual cut in federal expenditures of $85 billion to a yearly spending increase of more than $1.15 trillion.
“Based on the legislative turf that each of them has staked out so far, lawmakers on the Super Committee will not be approaching the task of cutting spending on a vast plot of common ground,” said NTUF senior policy analyst and BillTally project director Demian Brady. “However, BillTally data also demonstrates that if they are willing to explore ground that has already been plowed by other members, it is possible to cultivate a package that would fulfill the ten-year $1.5 trillion deficit reduction mandate of the Super Committee without raising taxes.”
The BillTally cost accounting system since 1991 has computed a “net annual agenda based on each Senator’s or Representative’s individual sponsorship or cosponsorship of legislation. This unique technique provides an in-depth look at the fiscal behavior of lawmakers, free from the influence of committee, party leaders and rules surrounding floor votes. All cost estimates of bills are obtained from third-party sources, Congressional members’ offices, or are calculated from neutral data.”
Pages: 1 2
I'd bet the house that no consensus will be reached. If the past decade has taught me anything, it's that liberalism is religion…and the faithful are exceedingly reluctant to commit heresy.
The tax settlement that a taxpayer qualifies through "Free Tax Settlement" for is dependent upon their unique financial situation. The IRS prefers individuals to pay their taxes owed in full, but they will make exceptions for certain circumstances.
U.S. income: $2,170,000,000,000 New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000 Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000 National debt: $14,271,000,000,000 Budget cut: $ 2, 100,000,000,000 ( CBO estimated )/ Annualized over 10 years (210,000,000,000) It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to.
Let’s remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious Smith family Total annual income for the Smith family: $21,700 Amount of money the Smith family spent: $38,200 Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500 Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710 Amount cut from the budget: $210 So in effect last month Congress, or in this example the SMITH family, sat down at the kitchen table and agreed to cut $210 from its annual budget. What family would cut $210 of spending in order to solve $16,500 in deficit spending?
This "super committee" is merely evidence of Congress giving up on doing its job. Each member should have say in these decisions. Leaving it to a committee is a sure fire way of having the issue die. It is a well worn sentiment in the Government that "if you want an issue to die, assign it to a committee." Now, with the rules for this committee in place (let's call them "The Dirty Dozen"), it would be in the Democrats best interest to NOT do anything. It is my understanding that in place are “triggers” should an agreement not be reached which would cause Defense to be cut AND taxes to be increased. How can they go wrong? Only if they agree to something with the Republicans can this go bad.
Again, this is Congress abdicating its responsibilities.
Why come up with a new deficit reduction plan when we already have a bipartisan plan that was created back in December 2010? The Bowles-Simpson Commission created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform plan that takes a balanced approach to in reducing the national debt. If you agree please sign a petition to Congress to have the “super committee” adopt Bowles-Simpson plan at http://tinyurl.com/3ra7er5.
Ah, but it's not about green eye shades now is it? Or about arcane counting of the beans? Or about balancing acts? Or about dong what's good for the economy?
It is ALL about Campaign 2012 Obama Re-election. Anything not a win for Obama will simply mean they revert to the fall back "no deal – BAD GOP". A win-win-win and bash while winning for the Dems. Stupid Boehner. Stupid.
Thank you a bunch for sharing this with all of us you actually recognise what you’re talking about! Bookmarked. Kindly also visit my site =). We can have a hyperlink change contract between us
I loved as much as you’ll obtain performed proper here. The cartoon is tasteful, your authored subject matter stylish. however, you command get bought an edginess over that you wish be delivering the following. in poor health surely come further previously again since precisely the same nearly very often within case you defend this increase.