Surprise, surprise — the so-called Super Committee isn’t very super.
It appears that the august micro-body of solons will fail to come to an agreement to reduce the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, not in any combination of new revenue or spending “cuts” by today’s effective deadline.
On the bright side, given the nature of the likeliest possible agreement this committee would conceive, its failure sounds like the best possible result.
We’re now over $15 trillion in debt, running a deficit of $1.5 trillion this year alone. Still, the Super Committee couldn’t sop up even 80 percent of the red ink they’re spilling just this year. Not even spread out over the decade.
It gets worse. “I think we need to be honest about it,” Kentucky Senator Rand Paul pointed out yesterday on CNN. “Spending is still rising under any of these plans. We’re only cutting proposed increases in spending.”
“The curve of spending in our country is going up at about 7.5 percent a year,” Sen. Paul went on to explain. “If you were to freeze spending for ten years, no cuts . . . they would call that a $9 trillion cut.”
So, as we face a debt crisis, the Super Committee couldn’t even manage to lessen their planned massive increases in spending.
Or talk straight with the American people.
Why? Perhaps because official Washington knows that spending is the real source of their power.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
4 replies on “The Un-Super Committee”
I’ll go you one better than saying they aren’t very “super.”
In bi-partisan commentary I will tell you that the 12 clowns from both party’s along with their party leadership, all suck!
Mike
The Political Commentator
http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2011/11/congressional-super-committee-in-spirit.html
The “Super”s were ever and only an ill-conceived means to try to shift blame.
Paul you hit the nail again, “spending is the real source of their power”. We the people are as much to blame. We continue to get what we ask for.
Nothing is free. I have an acquaintance who thinks he received a $600 airline ticket from his credit card company. Really? Free? I don’t think so.
The same is true when your congress person comes home with a bundle of money for their district. It is NOT free.
I noticed that the “proposed”cuts: in “entitlements” applied applied to the lwoer and middle class.
NOWEHERE DID I HEAR OR SEE ANY MENTION (I HAVE SAID THIS BEFORE) OF ANY CUTS TO CONGRESSIONAL SALARIES; STAFFS; PERKS; ETC.
INCLUDING THE FREE TRAVEL FOR MEMEBRS OF CONGRESS WHEN THEY ARE LEAVING.
WHERE THEY TAKE THEIR SPOUSE, OR LOVER(S) OR BOTH, AND CHILDREN, AT TAX PAYER EXPENSE.
TO THE GRETA BARRIER REEF; SWITZERLAND, ETC.
NOR THEIR FREE TRAVEL ON GOVERNMENT PLANES.
NOR SUBSIDIZED BANKING; HEALTH/DENTAL INSURANCE; BLOATED STAFFS; ETC.
WHEN I SEE THOSE ITEMS BEING CUT, (PROBABLY THREE WEEKS AFTER HELL FREEZES OVER), THEN I WILL BELEIVE THAT ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS IS SERIOUS ABOUT CUTTING SPENDING AND THE DEFICIT.
AND THIS INCLUDES THE REPUBLICANS.