Thoughts on proposed Super Congress

[Tarpon75]

Would like some thoughts on a proposal being made to form a so called Super Congress. I am conservative but am totally against this proposed ammendment by Republican leaders.If I understand correctly this would require a Constitutional ammendment to create this new governing body. This group would have power superceeding that of Congress.

[Bang]

No way no how.
What, the current system that has worked for more than 200 years isn't good enough for these clowns?

get the guillotine.
Clean house(s)

~Bang

[Burgold]

Do you have any links? I haven't heard about this. On the surface, it sounds pretty bad.

[Koolblue13]

Is this similar to when Dick Chenney tried to start his own branch of government?

[RedskinsFan44]

This is how bad it has gotten. We have a serious deficit problem that apparently can only be addressed under the pressure of potential economic disaster caused by default. And even then the system is so poisoned that the best they can come up with are proposals to change the rules. Perhaps tbe stock market plummeting tomorrow will bring about a compromise.

[Tarpon75]

Do you have any links? I haven't heard about this. On the surface, it sounds pretty bad.

Sorry, tried to provide a link but wasn't able.It is one of the lead stories on AOL/Huff Post.It does sound bad, I don't believe we can afford to let this happen.

---------- Post added July-24th-2011 at 03:32 PM ----------


No way no how.
What, the current system that has worked for more than 200 years isn't good enough for these clowns?

get the guillotine.
Clean house(s)

~Bang

You are right this system does work! The problem right now is we don't have the right people running the system.

[Koolblue13]

I'm never voting for any popular candidate or any candidate who's already had experience at the federal level.

[Buford]

Here is a better idea. Term limits in the House and Senate, both two 4 year terms along with one 6 year term for the President. Then the top guy can stop campaigning for his job, and lifers like Reid, Boehner, McConnell and the rest won't be around forever. Then you don't need a super congress because there should be much more movement and progression.

[Tarpon75]

Here is a better idea. Term limits in the House and Senate, both two 4 year terms along with one 6 year term for the President. Then the top guy can stop campaigning for his job, and lifers like Reid, Boehner, McConnell and the rest won't be around forever. Then you don't need a super congress because there should be much more movement and progression.

That or some variation of would be a step in the right direction.

[Buford]

I just read about this super congress idea. 6 people from each house and each party? Sounds like they are getting together to protect the two party system. God forbid this happens, but if it does....then we need to stop voting for ANYBODY with an R or D next to their names.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html

WASHINGTON -- Debt ceiling negotiators think they've hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public's unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress.

This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.




more after the jump

[HailGreen28]

Why is it when I think of "Super Congress", I think of these guys (both parties)?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Fiz7GTCvbys/TQg9SN-JODI/AAAAAAAAB_k/Z-BY14Jidw4/s1600/super+amigos+friends15.jpg

[Ignatius J.]

From all reports, it is the freshmen republican house members who are the problem here. Boehner, McConnel, heck even Cantor have all at times been wiling to pass the debt ceiling together with a reasonable compromise. In light of that, term limits sound like a terrible idea.

[Larry]

I'll just post what I said in the other thread about it:


Some reflections:

1) Boy, McConnell sure is working hard to figure out some way to raise the debt ceiling, that will allow the Republicans to demand that things be done the way they want, without the Republicans actually having to take ownership of the result.

2) OTOH, this idea seems to me to be in some ways similar to an idea that the Dems floated a year or so ago, and that seemed like a good idea, to me.

The Dems proposed creating a Deficit Reduction Commission. This commission would submit proposals to Congress on ways to reduce the deficit, and the law would have required Congress to hold a yes or no vote on the panel's proposals, as a single package, no modifications allowed.

I liked that idea. Yeah, I recognize that it's the coward's way of dealing with the problem. But it looked to me like an idea that might have worked. (And right now, I'll settle for "it might work".) If you believe that most members of Congress actually want to help the country, but they're being pressured by their lunatic fringes, (a theory which, I'll admit, may be more optimistic that reality), then something like this, with it requirement that deficit reduction must be voted on as a package, could give Congressmen some cover. "Gee, I didn't like that one part, there. But it was either yes or no on the entire package."


(From what I've read, the proposal was halted by Republicans who were afraid that the commission would suggest raising taxes, and by Democrats who feared that the commission would focus exclusively on eliminating entitlements.)

Now, that said, I do observe some differences between the deficit commission proposal, and McConnell's proposal.

1) McConnell's proposal would be composed entirely of professional politicians. The debt commission proposal, I don't think included any. (And, given what I've been seeing from Washington, lately, I think it's guaranteed that the Republican members would be the most partisan, party-before-country, thugs that the Party could find. And I think it's pretty likely that the Dems would do the same thing. This body would not be composed of the best of both parties, but of the worst.)

2) I observe that McConnell's proposal (at least as summarized in the article) builds it into law that all his body must submit a required quota of spending cuts. It would have the option of proposing revenue increases in addition to the spending cuts. But the law would require that all debt limit increases be "paid for" exclusively by spending cuts.

(Boy, for a party that controls 1/2 of 1/3 of the government, they sure do seem to feel entitled to demand that this negotiation, and all future negotiations must be done 100% the way that they demand.)

----------

Still, I have to say that I'm not 100% opposed to this idea. I think that, if viewed as a point from which to start negotiating, (Yeah, I know. I like to pretend that the Republicans will actually negotiate.), my opinion might well be "make some changes here and there, and I'd vote for it".

(Oh, BTW: Loathe the name.)

[isle-hawg]

Sounds like a twist on what happened in the first Star Wars movie. It didn't work out to good for the good guys in the movie (given rise to a bad guy who most everyone thought was a good guy from Senator to evil Emperor - for those that didn't watch the movie). I have no reason to think creating this power to a few elites would be any better for us in real life.

[SnyderShrugged]

Ahh yes, give more power to a few establishment folks who have been instrumental in all the actions that had have led up to this mess, and less voice for voters. what a wonderful sounding plan

[Destino]

The "super-congress" is basically a way to avoid the radicals and those seeking to slow things down. Anything approved by these 12 angry men would be fast tracked in both houses of congress and could not be amended. The only option for for "regular" reps and senators would be to vote up or down.

No thanks.

[Hubbs]

This is getting more pathetic by the day.


Here is a better idea. Term limits in the House and Senate, both two 4 year terms along with one 6 year term for the President. Then the top guy can stop campaigning for his job, and lifers like Reid, Boehner, McConnell and the rest won't be around forever. Then you don't need a super congress because there should be much more movement and progression.

I'd be all for it.


Why is it when I think of "Super Congress", I think of these guys (both parties)?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Fiz7GTCvbys/TQg9SN-JODI/AAAAAAAAB_k/Z-BY14Jidw4/s1600/super+amigos+friends15.jpg

Solomon Grundy no want Medicare cuts! Solomon Grundy crush deficit with bare hands instead!

[Thiebear]

IF thats the case fire the other 423. We can start small with the 12 that want to work and work our way back up with others that wish to pitch in.

The Congress already comes in on Tuesday and leaves on Thursday.
The Congress already take off august and October through January.
To ask to work even less should border on IMMEDIATE firing.

The Congress took off 80 days while the end of America was being predicted (by them) at the end of 2007.
They passed PAYGO and then never abide by it.
They have to pass a budget every year by law but its been since 2009 for the Senate.

What gives them the right to ask for anything except forgiveness?


also: They have 44+ committees already that have both Republican and Democrats and at least 4 joint committees.

[Beans]

The Congress already comes in on Tuesday and leaves on Thursday.
The Congress already take off august and October through January.

Sounds like my dream job. Don't forget the mandatory cocktails that start around 1600.



What gives them the right to ask for anything except forgiveness?


Ask? They should be begging for mercy...

[DallasCowboyFan156]

This plan reeks of Oligarchy.

[Koolblue13]

Super and Congress in the same sentence = :ols:

[brandymac27]

Absolutely against this. Given, I haven;t heard much about it, but no way do I want a "super congress".

---------- Post added July-24th-2011 at 03:15 PM ----------


This plan reeks of Oligarchy.

IMO, we're pretty much an Oligarchy now.

[Larry]

Any of the people issuing universal condemnation actually read what's supposedly being discussed, here?

A bipartisan committee comes up with a proposal to cut the deficit.

The proposal then goes to Congress, where it receives a straight, up-or-down vote.

Yeah, I could see how this deal certainly could produce simply more partisanship. But even then, at least there would be proposals being put out, in writing, and actual votes being cast for or against it.

Wouldn't that be better than the current "the leadership doesn't think it's partisan enough, therefore nobody's even allowed to vote on it" system?

[brandymac27]

Larry, I read the article and frankly any type of new branch of government, especially one with "extraordinary new powers" scares the hell out me. No thanks!

[SKINS@THEGOALLINE]

This is from Dictionary.com.,

Po·lit·bu·ro
   [pol-it-byoor-oh, poh-lit-, puh-lit-] Show IPA

–noun
( often lowercase ) the executive committee and chief policymaking body of a Communist party.

[Hubbs]

Larry, I read the article and frankly any type of new branch of government, especially one with "extraordinary new powers" scares the hell out me. No thanks!

It's not really a "new branch of government." It's a new, powerful committee in Congress. Nobody calls the Ways and Means Committee a "separate branch of government."

I'm just not sure that creating another level of bureaucracy is going to accomplish anything.

EDIT: I also am extremely repulsed by the notion that the "Super Congress" would have to be made up of "six members from each party." God forbid a few independents or third-party candidates happen to be elected. I honestly think that our political culture is rotting so quickly that we may be near a tipping point at which true outsiders have a legitimate chance at being elected, and this would present yet another hurdle to actual power and influence.

[DieselPwr44]

Brilliant! Just how did we get along all those decades without THIS committee??

How about 500 gallons of water and enough Lysol to match and the whole damn place gets scrubbed free of the lazy scumbags that reside within?

[Larry]

Larry, I read the article and frankly any type of new branch of government, especially one with "extraordinary new powers" scares the hell out me. No thanks!

It isn't a new branch of government, and it has the same powers which Congress already has, and have chosen to delegate to it.

[isle-hawg]

[QUOTE=Larry;8396797]A bipartisan committee comes up with a proposal to cut the deficit.

The proposal then goes to Congress, where it receives a straight, up-or-down vote/QUOTE]

We already did this with Obama's bi-partisan deficit/budget committee. They actually proposed a solution and go-figure everybody in congress and the president himself condemned it - without proposing an alternative. Would love to see what they already proposed adopted. Not happening though as cuts to too many sacred cows and it raised taxes.

[Thiebear]

Larry,

If only there was a committe on ways or even means.. then we wouldn't need to redo everything.
or
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform
or
a law passed by Congress that would make you pay for whatever you pass so you can't continue to go into debt.

[DieselPwr44]

I sure wish I had a job where I get paid not to do it.

[Larry]

Just to pull one scenario out of thin air:

How many Republicans do y'all figure there are, right now, in Congress, who would be willing to vote for a deficit-reduction measure that included some tax increases, if they had the political cover of being able to say "well, I had to vote for or against the whole thing"?

[sacase]

Oh hell NO!!! When Politicians start changing how government works there are BIG problems on the way with it. All this is, is a power move by Dems and Republicans to stay relevant. I think they are starting to see people get frustrated with the two party system and realize that because of their actions, their time is numbered. The GOP see's what's going on with the Tea Party and the Dems see that happening and know it can happen to them. This way if there is a "super congress" of 6 dems and 6 GOP, they can maintain their power.

I have an excellent idea. First, get rid of political parties, no more parties, caucuses, conventions, etc. No more national fund raising. Nothing. Make people run on their own platform of ideas. Each candidate is responsible to the people who elected him, not his party. No more checking D or R all the way down the ballet.

Next, term limits, get these guys out of here after 2 terms.

Finally, get rid of the pensions. Thank you for your service, you did a good thing for your country, now be happy with the connections you made while you were in office and go make your millions without sucking the nation for the rest of your life. buh bye.

[Thiebear]

Just to pull one scenario out of thin air:

How many Republicans do y'all figure there are, right now, in Congress, who would be willing to vote for a deficit-reduction measure that included some tax increases, if they had the political cover of being able to say "well, I had to vote for or against the whole thing"?
88%

[Destino]

There are many problems with this:
1 - it weakens the voice of elected officials not on the super congress team significantly. Thi allows political parties to ignore certain members more easily and thus thier constituents.
2 - it's bipartisan which for some reason Americans think is a good thing. I don't share this notion as I know the minority party does little more then weaken any bill it knows it can't outright block. This will grant equal voice to the party people voted out of power.
3 - it makes lawmaking easier. I want less new laws or at least rules that you have to remove something for ever two you add. The rule book is thick enough and already being misused. Spend more time fine tuning what has been done and less time making up more crap for us to deal with.

[Hubbs]

There are many problems with this:
1 - it weakens the voice of elected officials not on the super congress team significantly. Thi allows political parties to ignore certain members more easily and thus thier constituents.
2 - it's bipartisan which for some reason Americans think is a good thing. I don't share this notion as I know the minority party does little more then weaken any bill it knows it can't outright block. This will grant equal voice to the party people voted out of power.
3 - it makes lawmaking easier. I want less new laws or at least rules that you have to remove something for ever two you add. The rule book is thick enough and already being misused. Spend more time fine tuning what has been done and less time making up more crap for us to deal with.

Three very good criticisms.

[brandymac27]

EDIT: I also am extremely repulsed by the notion that the "Super Congress" would have to be made up of "six members from each party." God forbid a few independents or third-party candidates happen to be elected. I honestly think that our political culture is rotting so quickly that we may be near a tipping point at which true outsiders have a legitimate chance at being elected, and this would present yet another hurdle to actual power and influence.

Very good point.

[chipwhich]

Just to pull one scenario out of thin air:

How many Republicans do y'all figure there are, right now, in Congress, who would be willing to vote for a deficit-reduction measure that included some tax increases, if they had the political cover of being able to say "well, I had to vote for or against the whole thing"?

And how many Democrats do y'all figure there are, right now, in Congress, who would be willing to vote for a measure that was based solely on tax increases without any cut in spending?

[Burgold]

Remember my thread, "Republicans versus the Bill of Rights" perhaps I was thinking too small in scope :kickcan:

Honestly, it sounds like the first move towards a coup or a dictatorship. Consolidate all the power in a small group, minimalize all the existing structures, and revolution!

[Larry]

There are many problems with this:
1 - it weakens the voice of elected officials not on the super congress team significantly. Thi allows political parties to ignore certain members more easily and thus thier constituents.

Agreed.

(Although, that could be good or bad, depending on who gets appointed.)

(Unfortunately, I think that looking at recent political events, I think the smart money will be betting on "bad".)


2 - it's bipartisan which for some reason Americans think is a good thing. I don't share this notion as I know the minority party does little more then weaken any bill it knows it can't outright block. This will grant equal voice to the party people voted out of power.

Dunno if I'd consider bipartisan to be bad. Yes, it did occur to me that if there's only six people in the group, and if three of them are willing to stand in unified obstruction of any proposal that isn't 100% to their liking (I wonder why I imagined such a scenario), then this group might simply not produce anything whatsoever.

OTOH, my opinion is that if it can't produce anything whatsoever, then what have we lost?


3 - it makes lawmaking easier. I want less new laws or at least rules that you have to remove something for ever two you add. The rule book is thick enough and already being misused. Spend more time fine tuning what has been done and less time making up more crap for us to deal with.

It makes reducing the deficit easier. I don't think this group is going to be reforming health care or writing environmental legislation.

---------- Post added July-24th-2011 at 06:01 PM ----------


And how many Democrats do y'all figure there are, right now, in Congress, who would be willing to vote for a measure that was based solely on tax increases without any cut in spending?

Maybe a few.

But since I haven't seen a single person even so much as propose it, it kinda means you had to reach a really long way, to get all that straw.

So far, I've seen two proposals:

100% cutting services for the poor
75% cutting services for the poor, and 25% getting dit of some tax loopholes, but no actual changes in the tax rates.

[sacase]

So far, I've seen two proposals:

100% cutting services for the poor
75% cutting services for the poor, and 25% getting dit of some tax loopholes, but no actual changes in the tax rates.

Define poor.

[Larry]

Define poor.

People who have to get their health insurance from the government.

[Hubbs]

It makes reducing the deficit easier. I don't think this group is going to be reforming health care or writing environmental legislation.

That's one hell of an assumption to make. Oh, sure, the first thing this group might do is tackle deficit reduction....

[thebluefood]

Just to remind everyone, the Republican party is supposedly the champion of the Constitution.

Oh, and my thoughts on this "Super Congress?"

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSHurNgdvPUEj7Ns8ejFTN4LSYtvgbec 1e_IDDbT_UvK2EV4jrr9A

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSSIighonKORggHk9xqEOlcPMyR_78lx bhvJnqjmrRxdLsx6iIqHQ

and uh...OH! Did I mention...

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSjBY9eeG20ywaiFnmxkElzy1_rNorl-htMl7GVh3vOAom2A7Vp9kkdu08M

The time for a viable third party has come, my friends. This oligarchy must be gutted and replaced by a legitimate government.

[DallasCowboyFan156]

Just to pull one scenario out of thin air:

How many Republicans do y'all figure there are, right now, in Congress, who would be willing to vote for a deficit-reduction measure that included some tax increases, if they had the political cover of being able to say "well, I had to vote for or against the whole thing"?

That's a good point but the opposite holds true as well. How many, from either party, would vote no on a really good bill that has a single clause that they don't like. Without any way to amend the bill I think the answer would be more than just a few.

[Larry]

Just to remind everyone, the Republican party is supposedly the champion of the Constitution.

And this proposal is absolutely, completely, 100% Constitutional.

Each house of Congress has the power to write their own rules for how they do things.

(Sometimes, they even follow them.)

----------

Just to create a hypothetical:

If the House wanted to pass a rule, saying that the Speaker of the House had the authority to propose any legislation he wanted, and the House was required to vote on it, no amendments, within 24 hours, then they could do that. With a simple majority vote of the House.

[wantarace17]

this is ridiculous..viva la revolucion

[Larry]

That's a good point but the opposite holds true as well. How many, from either party, would vote no on a really good bill that has a single clause that they don't like. Without any way to amend the bill I think the answer would be more than just a few.

It worked for closing military bases.

When they were forced to vote for the entire thing, no amendments, no splitting the package into separate line items, then Congress was able to vote to close military bases.

[thebluefood]

And this proposal is absolutely, completely, 100% Constitutional.

Each house of Congress has the power to write their own rules for how they do things.

(Sometimes, they even follow them.)

I'm sorry, but this whole thing reeks to me. We're not just talking about another committee. We're talking about a group that would have unprecedented power and would have much of the power with little of the responsibility.

If this is malarkey is constitutional, it's borderline.

[Larry]

I'm sorry, but this whole thing reeks to me. We're not just talking about another committee. We're talking about a group that would have unprecedented power and would have much of the power with little of the responsibility.

If this is malarkey is constitutional, it's borderline.

WTF you getting this "unprecedented power" hooey?

It would have the power to propose legislation.

And I've already pointed out a previous case in which tules similar to this were set up, were followed, and they worked.

[thebluefood]

WTF you getting this "unprecedented power" hooey?

It would have the power to propose legislation.

And I've already pointed out a previous case in which tules similar to this were set up, were followed, and they worked.

While that's true, I've also read that there would be no room to amend proposed legislation, only up and down votes. Is this normal from bills from normal committees?

[Larry]

While that's true, I've also read that there would be no room to amend proposed legislation, only up and down votes. Is this normal from bills from normal committees?

Nope. Only from the ones that have been granted that power. Like the Base Realignment And Closure commission that I mentioned.

And I'm not certain, but I think it's also done that way for conference committees.

Edit: I decided to go pull up a link, to try to demonstrate that similar rules have been done before, so I went to this Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure,_2005), and it seems like this non-Congressional entity had even more authority than I thought. They didn't submit proposals to Congress. They presented a list which automatically took effect unless Congress voted to reject it.

[thebluefood]

Nope. Only from the ones that have been granted that power. Like the Base Realignment And Closure commission that I mentioned.

And I'm not certain, but I think it's also done that way for conference committees.

And maybe it worked for that; but you have to understand that vesting even more power in an already powerful body is not the most appealing idea to me. How do we know any one of the 535 current members of Congress, along with any future members, can be trusted with proposing bills that are immune from amending?

[Larry]

And maybe it worked for that; but you have to understand that vesting even more power in an already powerful body is not the most appealing idea to me.

Which part of "this law does not create or grant any new powers whatsoever" does everybody seem unable to grasp?

[Burgold]

I suspect it's these two parts, Larry.

This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote.

[Larry]

I suspect it's these two parts, Larry.

This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote.

And as I've pointed out, such things already happen, and have been for some time.

I've provided specific examples.

If I can find an article, somewhere, that claims that Obamacare is an attempt to impose Sharia Law, and it's then followed by 30 posts from people who believe it, will that make it true?

[Burgold]

Hey,

I'm just going by the articles posted within the thread. :)

The description of the fast tracking with the rest of Congress not able to tinker with it at all seems a little bit more powerful than an ordinary committee.

Full Disclosure: I haven't read the full thread... just a couple posts at the beginning and end... so, if you've really answered this... Apologies for wasting time. It seemed to me this article spoke to bluefood's fears

[Hubbs]

For what it's worth, Super Congress is getting a lot of attention on Twitter, and I still haven't seen anyone say something positive about the idea.

[Larry]

Perhaps because the label "super Congress" is inflammatory and inaccurate.

But that's just a thought.

FWIW, I'm not certain that I approve of the thing, either. For example, I observe that the BRAC group I've pointed at was composed of military personnel, not of partisan politicians. I could see that making a huge difference in how I'd feel about the thing.

I could easily see this group being packed with people who were hand-picked by their Parties for being the most partisan people in the whole Congress.

I could see the thing working, if the people in the group, were of the position of "OK, we all know what really needs to be done, here. We just need political cover to do it, so our respective bases don't kill us."

But, is that the kind of person who would be appointed? There's certainly no guarantee.

OTOH, I don't see any way where it's possible to demand that any such group be composed of people who are willing to negotiate. There's no way you can write a rule that would require it.

(Actually, I may have thought of a way. Let's say that the three R slots in the committee are chosen by the R's, but they have to be confirmed by 2/3 of their respective chamber. Would that guarantee that the people appointed, while being members of their respective parties, would at least be tolerable to the other side? If the other side had to say "I can work with this guy"?)

[twa]

That's one hell of an assumption to make. Oh, sure, the first thing this group might do is tackle deficit reduction....


Well they might want to include some more stimulus

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/177175-dem-supercommittee-members-want-focus-on-stimulus-
Senate Democrats on the supercommittee say the group needs to include stimulus for the economy in the deficit-reduction plan it has been tasked with producing by Thanksgiving.


hell why not throw in a little healthcare reform and maybe some environmental reform?

just another head to the hydra

[Fergasun]

"Super Congress" / Super Committee Fail
It's so bad that Congress can't even come together and agree on what legislation to propose. Basically both parties are admitting that they couldn't pass any major bipartisan legislation. Really?! This is your job!

[Buford]

what we need are super term-limits for these jokes. They prove over and over to not be up for the job.

[Kilmer17]

Sure. MORE govt will be the answer.

dummies.

[Thiebear]

The Super Committee was a complete failure: I had hoped they would at least fix the "EASY" stuff.
To create a Super Congress now, they would have to define the word Super.
As nobody has seen it from them in a generation.

[Henry]

This is what we get when the ability to work with the opposition is considered a weakness.

[Hersh]

This truly is the worst congress ever and they are crushing our country with their inability to get anything done. Different Congressmen are already writing legislation to attempt to under the automatic cuts triggered by the failure including $500 Billion over ten years to the defense department. I hope Obama vetoes any legislation to undo the triggers.

[Larry]

"Super Congress" / Super Committee Fail
It's so bad that Congress can't even come together and agree on what legislation to propose. Basically both parties are admitting that they couldn't pass any major bipartisan legislation. Really?! This is your job!

Actually, I think it's much more a case of "doesn't want to" than "can't".

It was said when the committee was formed, that the Republicans made sure that they only appointed people who swore oaths tha they would not permit taxes to be increased, under any circumstances. And that the Democrats appointed people who swore that they wouldn't vote for any proposal that didn't include any.

(That's why I suggested that if they were going to do this, then they needed a rule that to be appointed, the full House/Senate had to have a 2/3 vote to confirm the appointment. That way, the committee will be made up of people where "the other side" (at least some of them) has voted "I can work with this guy".)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This is what we get when the ability to work with the opposition is considered a weakness.


This truly is the worst congress ever and they are crushing our country with their inability to get anything done. Different Congressmen are already writing legislation to attempt to under the automatic cuts triggered by the failure including $500 Billion over ten years to the defense department. I hope Obama vetoes any legislation to undo the triggers.

What did we expect when in response to a single bill that got through congress, we Americans elected the most extreme member of the opposite side in every political election we could?