Hopefully, you understand the basics of what happens if the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the Super Committee) fails to produce a plan to reduce the budget deficit by its November 23rd deadline. Most obviously, it will mean that something called “sequestration” kicks in. That’s just a fancy word that means $1.2 trillion will be cut from the ten-year budget, with half coming out of the Pentagon’s hide and the other half coming from Medicare providers and cuts in discretionary appropriations for nondefense programs. The Republicans don’t want either result, and they have one powerful arrow in the quiver. As the Heritage Foundation makes clear, they are going to use the testimony of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who has said recently that sequestration would have a devastating impact on our national defense. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have expressed a similar opinion. Thus, tremendous pressure can be brought to bear on Democrats to restore much of the defense spending that stands to be cut if the Super Committee cannot come up with deficit reduction recommendations.
Yet, the Democrats are showing some spine. The White House made clear that they do not intend to sign any bill that undoes the Pentagon’s budget cuts, and Harry Reid is indicating that the Senate won’t let such a bill get to the president’s desk in the first place.
Republicans cite the warning from Leon Panetta, President Obama’s Defense secretary, who has cautioned that slashing the Pentagon’s budget would hollow out the military.
Panetta warned lawmakers this week that a supercommittee failure would force him to slash 2013 spending by $100 billion.
But [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid said Tuesday that Senate Democrats would not allow non-defense discretionary programs to bear the brunt of automatic cuts and defense programs to dodge the blade.
“If the committee fails to act, sequestration is going to go forward. Democrats are not going to take an unfair, unrealistic load directed toward domestic discretionary spending … and take it away from the military,” Reid said.
“Those who are — who talk about retracting the sequester are wrong and are not living up to the agreement we reached to cut our nation’s deficit last July,” Reid added.
Another possible consequence of failure by the Super Committee is a further downgrade of our country’s credit rating, so rooting for failure isn’t without its costs. Yet, if the Democrats are willing to take the heat for massive defense spending cuts, they can get them. However, it’s doubtful that in an election year the Democrats would want to hold the line. Some level of defense spending would probably be restored.
Are you rooting for failure?
Count me as a “pro-fail” person. The Military-Industrial complex is taking over. There is seemingly no stopping it. The fail would ensure that defense takes a huge haircut, and it’s about time. If we could cut defense more, I’m for that.
Agreed.
I’m constantly hearing about how Congress would just restore the Pentagon funding anyway, but even in the worst case, I don’t see them restoring all of it.
Are you rooting for failure?
Yes!! See, I can be upbeat and happy!! 😉
I’m happy to anticipate a big hit to the MIC, but the possibility of Medicare cuts concerns me. The last time there were big cuts to first responder payments for Medicare/Medicaid patients (around Y2K), our rural county had to pony up an amount equal to 10% of the entire general fund budget as a subsidy to retain paramedic service that had previously been provided for the cost billed to the patients’ Medicare/Medicaid. We begged providers from all over the state to bid on the service, but received no response from any of them. Finally got a hospital from the county next door to agree to provide the service if the taxpayers would pick up part of the cost. The alternative would have been no ambulance service at all and a minimum 20 – 30 minute ride to the nearest ER. OK for a cut finger maybe, but heart, stroke, severe allergic reaction – say goodbye.
Shoving expenses off on local government is a tactic Gov. Mitch Daniels has used frequently with great success, BTW. It eliminates expense from the state budget and gives him a scapegoat (local government) he can whine to the media about out-of-control government spending. No surprise the feds would take advantage as well.
Am I right in thinking that if the Super Committee fails, then the cuts don’t take effect until Jan. 2013? And if so, why not root for failure, avoid recession-inducing cuts now, and campaign throughout 2012 on the Republicans’ refusal to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires for any reason at all?
No. I don’t want it to fail however I do not want to see the dems and Obama CAVING IN AGAIN to the hostage takers and having all cuts come from Medicare providers while the bloated military budget stays intact. I don’t care if they parade Henry Kissinger out there, Reid has to stand tough.
BUT-I’m not going to pretend to understand this thing-waiting til 2013 might not be a bad thing??
The dems should walk out. Reason? They are unable to negotiate directly with Grover. Thus, no deal possible.
Besides, as the right-wingers like to say, you don’t negotiate with terrorists.
yep
I don’t know. I’m kind of apathetic about it. In the end it won’t matter if student loan debt and Medicare aren’t dealt with, not to mention climate change. I just can’t get myself worked up over it, especially when it’s obvious Republicans can’t take yes for an answer.
The two scenarios, as I understand them, are either hoping Democrats don’t cave on restoring military cuts in next year’s budget, or hoping they don’t cave on military cuts behind closed doors in the next week.
Put that way, it’s pretty obvious. Failure is not only an option, it is the only option!
yup
Failure is the only option. Anything else means the Dems have caved again.
Here’s what really happens:
1.) The Super Committee comes to an agreement in which all the cuts are backdated and start in 5 or 6 years.
What happens: The Congress of 5 or 6 years from now doesn’t like the cuts, so they vote to overturn them.
2.) The Super Committee kicks the can down the road and gives itself an extension.
What happens: Congress then plays along by pushing the trigger down the road behind it.
3.) Democrats on the Super Committee cave and cut domestic spending while stipulating that cuts in Defense and increases in revenue “will be decided at a later date”.
What happens: Republicans accept the cuts in domestic spending. Use smoke and mirrors (AKA dynamic scoring) to “raise” revenue on paper. Then add new defense spending when the time for cuts arrive.
4.) The Super Committee is hopelessly deadlocked.
What happens: Congress decides it doesn’t like the trigger after all and simply erases it. No cuts. No tax hikes. And the Kabuki show is over.
#3 is what the Republicans are playing for. They’re offering ZERO concessions in the hopes that Democrats will do the job for them.
If #4 is what you’re calling failure, then I’m all for it.
Do I want the supercommittee to fail? I didn’t even want them ro exist!
Yes. And I believe it was pretty much designed — knowing the Republicans — to fail. And thus succeed.
I’m rooting for Trigger. That’s right.
That is $60 billion in cuts to the military and $60 billion in cuts to Medicare providers for FY2012. What it means beyond January 2013 will be decided in next year’s election.
The first is needed because the military budget is bloated. The GOP is afraid that the trigger will take away $60 billion in corporate welfare. If he will, Leon Panetta can cut that amount and have a stronger military.
The second is the “doc-fix” that the Congress has kicked down the road because they don’t want to offend the 1% who manage large healthcare systems and who have been overcharging for two decades. And if those healthcare systems resist by cutting at the bottom or excluding Medicare patients, the pressure increases for single-payer healthcare to balance out the average costs.
It all depends. I’d rather the super committee fail than that Democrats agree to raising the eligibility age for medicare, or that they agree to renew the Bush tax cuts in return for comparatively small revenue enhancements.