Joshua Holland: 'Super Congress' "Is A Scam Designed To Fail - Keep Taxes On Rich Low

[Hissyspit]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/151993/the_%27super_congress%27_is_a_scam_designed_to_force_cuts_to_popular_programs_and_keep_taxes_on_the_rich_low

The 'Super Congress' Is a Scam Designed to Force Cuts To Popular Programs and Keep Taxes On The Rich Low

Ignore all the process stories about the vaunted Gang of 12 -- here's how the endgame plays out.

Alternet / By Joshua Holland

August 11, 2011

- snip -

It's a Set-Up

Here's how the deal was supposed to play out, according to the White House: Congress cut around $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years as a “down payment” on a larger package in exchange for raising the debt limit through the 2012 election. The Gang of 12 is then supposed to come up with at least another $1.2 trillion in debt reduction through a mix of additional cuts – possibly to include cuts to Medicare and Social Security – and revenue increases. If seven members vote on a package along those lines, it will get an automatic up-or-down vote in both chambers of Congress – amendments won't be allowed.

- snip -

The Democrats would have yet more leverage, they said, because the trigger would kick in at the same time as the Bush tax cuts are set to expire, which in theory would allow Obama to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans if the Gang of 12 comes up with a deal that isn't “balanced.”

It's an interesting legislative story, but none of it is going to happen.

Designed to Fail

The “super congress” that emerged from the deal offered a way to kick what had been an unbridgeable divide down the road a ways, but it doesn't alter the contours of the debate. While some Republicans have indicated that they might support closing a few loopholes to raise revenues, the party as a whole remains committed to their no-tax pledge. Democrats – especially House Democrats – have repeated that we need a “balanced” approach to cutting debt like a mantra. They've signaled they would be willing to accept some cuts to Social Security and Medicare, but not cuts sufficiently deep to entice enough GOP support for a package with new revenues.

MORE AT LINK

[NightWatcher]

1. Before Day 1 we already know the repukes picked 6 that will not budge and

And Reid picked Baucus, who damn near single handedly sank healthcare.

Don't waste your time watching or gnashing teeth over the Uber Congress.

[eShirl]

2. +1

[Bluebear]

3. +

[WinkyDink]

4. I thought this was obvious?

[RT Atlanta]

6. Same here

With 6 pukes appointed that have signed "pledges" not to raise taxes, all this charade will do is KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD to the 2012 election, where we can have another manufactured crisis, only this time, it will also coincide with presidential election and state elections, ensuring extremely high voter turnout - but for "who know's what?"

[amborin]

9. +1

[Hissyspit]

5. kick nt

[Octafish]

7. What FDR said.

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

[Jim Lane]

8. I disagree with his prediction for the Super Congress.

He's saying that no agreement will be reached -- that the committee will deadlock 6-6, because each party's representatives will vote as a bloc.

That's not what's generally happened in this Congress. The Republicans have voted as a bloc, with near-perfect uniformity, but they've often been able to find some Democrats to "reach across the aisle," i.e., to vote for Republican plans.

In this instance, many of us on DU see that happening again, with the most likely co-conspirator being Baucus. The committee will produce a "compromise" plan. It will have no significant revenue component. As compared with the cuts that the trigger would implement, the committee's compromise will shift most or all of the pain away from the military, by implementing even more brutal cuts to social programs than would occur under the trigger. This plan will pass both houses with unanimous or near-unanimous Republican support, and plenty of Democrats (enough in the House to make up for any Tea Party defections, and enough in the Senate to turn the Republicans' nominal minority into a working majority).

In sum, the linked article, which presents a very bleak picture, is still too optimistic.