Supercommittee’s secrecy disappoints Republican House freshmen

[alp227]

Source: Wash. Post

A number of Republican House freshmen who came to Washington promising to slash government spending are increasingly worried that the congressional supercommittee, to which that task has now fallen, is operating too much in secret and that the lack of transparency could doom the enterprise.

Despite a few open sessions, including one on Tuesday, they worry that the panel’s mostly private negotiations will produce a result that does not represent the kind of revolutionary change they had hoped to bring to the Capitol.

Some are concerned that the legal mandate of the 12-member panel — to cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion over the next decade — is too small. Some fear that they may be asked to sign on to the group’s product in December, without much time to review it, and warned of dire consequences if they do not get on board.

But most of all, they are disappointed that the supercommittee has been operating almost entirely behind closed doors. Though the group held its fifth public hearing Tuesday, its members have spent hours huddled behind closed doors and have offered only vague public comments about the progress of their talks.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supercommittees-secrecy-disappoints-republican-house-freshmen/2011/10/31/gIQAwJpudM_singlePage.html

[bertman]

1. Filing this under the Good News heading. REC. Why aren't we hearing this from more Dems?

[truthisfreedom]

2. I don't believe this supercommittee is either super or constitutionally legal.

My personal opinion.

[Old Codger]

3. Agreed n/t

[Yupster]

4. And my prediction is

they will produce nothing to be voted on.

Congress will pass anoother short-term continuing resolution with a few cuts in it and they may do that 2-3 more times until the whole thing will be folded into next year's budget.

All that will have been accomplised is once more kicking the debt problem down the road a bit more.

[No Elephants]

6. This Super Committee is super like the Great Depression was great.

Constitution issue is very dicey.

I don't know if legal scholars would say it is unconstitutional, though.

We've had so much perversion of that blessed document. Constitutional law seems not to be a matter of what the Consititution says or intends anywmore, but what we've been numbed to accept, even cheer.

[red dog 1]

5. "Dire consequences if they do not get on board"?...WTF does that mean?

[No Elephants]

7. Sometimes, it helps if you read the article.

Not always, but sometimes.

Red dog, huh?

Clifford, is that you?




I would have thought that "red dog" might be an odd choice for a DUer, but I am mistaken.

Turns out three posters had coincidentially chosen variations on the name "red dog."

I was further surprised to see just how many DU screen names do begin with "red," so I guess I am really not that observant.

As someone much wiser than I wrote, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as

sweet"- William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, 2.2

Very belated welcome to DU. Don't be such a stranger!

[No Elephants]

8. Super Committee. Freshman Republicans. So....oxymoron and asshats.

So, the newbie Rethug fuckers want more transparency from this misbegotten, allegedly bipartisan, Constitutionally extraordinary (at best) committee, do they?

Why, I oughtta, and youse oughtta



Wait, what?

[Rex]

9. Don't worry little guppies, one day your blowhole will be given

the due owed it. Until then, be the good little lap dogs you are and continue to lie for your betters. Thanks.

Signed,

Super-secret Superdupper Democratic Alawys Free Forum of Super Leaders.





P.S. We rule, you drool.