Cause we're the 12 best friends that anyone could have . .

[bpwallace49]

..The ‘super committee’ is complete

.

.By Chris Moody

Political Reporter

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi unveiled her choices for the "super committee" Thursday, filling the final seats of the powerful panel with legislators who are almost sure to insist on revenue increases in the final deal to tamp down the nation's debt crisis.

 

Reps. James Clyburn of South Carolina, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Xavier Becerra of California will represent House Democrats in the 12-member bipartisan, bicameral group responsible for crafting a plan for $1.5 trillion in debt reduction over 10 years.

 

"We must achieve a 'grand bargain' that reduces the deficit by addressing our entire budget, while strengthening Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security," Pelosi said in a statement.

 

Clyburn and Van Hollen are familiar with the overall task at hand. They were involved in Vice President Joe Biden's debt-reduction negotiations, which fell apart earlier this year. Becerra has long been a fierce opponent of cuts to Social Security and Medicare, which could be on the chopping block during the super committee talks.

 

The committee is stocked with a range of Capitol Hill characters--although some argue not diverse enough in race and gender--including veteran compromisers and staunch ideologues.

 

Here's a rundown of the rest of the committee:

 

House Republicans

 

Republicans leaders picked six members who have pledged never to support tax increases of any kind, which will no doubt complicate the path to any sustainable accord.

On the House side, Speaker John Boehner chose Reps. Dave Camp of Michigan, Jeb Hensarling of Texas, and Fred Upton of Michigan.

 

Of those three, Democrats will likely look to Upton, a Republican with a moderate record, as a possible GOP ally on a bargain that includes revenue increases. Last year, a coalition of right-leaning groups launched an unsuccessful campaign to keep Upton, who has a prickly relationship with conservatives, from chairing the House Energy committee.

 

Hensarling, now one of Boehner's deputies on the GOP leadership team, formerly chaired the Republican Study Committee, a coalition of more than 175 conservative members of the House. His presence will provide some relief to conservatives who may be worried about Upton.

 

And Camp, as chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, is the head tax-law writer in the chamber, and therefore an obvious pick for the group.

 

Senate Democrats

 

Of Majority Leader Harry Reid's picks for the committee--Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Max Baucus of Montana, and Patty Murray of Washington--Kerry and Baucus will likely be the ones to strike a final deal.

 

The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee has proven himself a force for compromise in the Senate, and his voting record over the years, while liberal, doesn't paint the picture of a rigid ideologue. Most recently, Kerry has insisted repeatedly on the need to reform the way the government pays for Social Security and Medicare, a call that has raised alarm bells among liberal groups.

 

He's joined by Baucus, also a known dealmaker. Baucus was one of the lead writers of the Democratic health care overhaul, and helped see it through, compromise by compromise, to passage. "I care about results, and to get results, you have to work together and truly compromise," Baucus has said.

 

Murray, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, will likely serve as the stalwart Senate liberal.

 

Senate Republicans

 

Like Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell chose to pursue a blend of veteran deal makers and ideological purists--although McConnell has signaled several times that the GOP will not agree to any revenue increases and will pursue changes to Social Security and Medicare.

 

"My main criteria for selecting members was to identify serious, constructive senators who are interested in achieving a result that helps to get our nation's fiscal house in order," McConnell has said. "That means reforming entitlement programs that are the biggest drivers of our debt, and reforming the tax code in a way that makes us more competitive and leads to more American jobs."

 

Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl is the eldest of McConnell's picks. He serves as minority whip, and represented Senate Republicans during the Biden talks.

 

McConnell put two freshmen on the panel, Oregon Sen. Rob Portman, the former director of the Office of Management and Budget under George W. Bush, and Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, former president of the Club for Growth, an activist organization known for pummeling Republican lawmakers who vote for higher taxes and increased spending. Toomey is the only Republican pick to vote against the debt ceiling compromise passed last week.

 

The Way Forward

 

The group of 12 has until Thanksgiving to agree to a plan and Congress will have until Dec. 23 to accept or reject it. If nothing is agreed to, an automatic "trigger" will set in and make drastic cuts across the board.

 

The super committee only requires a majority vote to pass the proposal onto Congress by the Nov. 23 deadline. The question remains: Will Republicans convince just one Democrat to join them in support of a plan that keeps taxes at their current rates and reforms entitlements or will Democrats successfully woo one Republican toward raising tax revenues?

 

Of course, the outcome may not be that stark. Over the coming months, we'll learn whether this group will be able to work together, or if it will become mired in stalemate--as is the fate of many other working groups in Washington.

 

I am sure this will end well, with a cordial, respectful working relationship united in representing what is best for the American people without devolving into name calling and partisan bickering.

[jetsfan]

I thought (hoped?) this was gonna be about a new sampler 12-pack of beer.

 

Sierra Nevada Best of Beer Camp

[Azazello1313]

pretty disappointed with the choices all around. I saw the writing on the wall when they released the first names and patty murray was one of them.

 

so I guess now they do nothing but posture toward public opinion while demagoguing each other, and then LOUDLY bluff each other about letting the automatic spending cuts in the debt ceiling bill go into effect. so in other words, lots more "OH NOES, THE TEA PARTY TERRORISTS ARE GONNA STARVE GRAMMA TO PROTECT TAX CUTS FOR PRIVATE JET OWNERS!"

 

the path out of this is pretty clear, and it is reasonably palatable to most of the country. it is basically what was lined out in the recommendations of the bowles-simpson proposal, namely:

1) fairly throrough tax reform that lowers rates, while reducing write-offs and broadening the tax base. it will be rigged in such a way that projected revenues increase slightly relative to current projections (by say 1% of GDP). this allows both sides to sorta claim victory (GOP can say we lowered tax rates, dems can say we increased revenue) and it's done in a way that most economists say will be growth-enhanching

2) modest but mildly painful "cuts" (reductions in the rate of growth is more accurate) to defense and discretionary spending

3) fairly serious entitlement reform. this is the piece that the grownups in the room all realize HAS to be part of any real fix. the degree can vary slightly depending on whether you increase revenue and by how much, and on how much you are willing to cut defense. but even if you tax every penny from the rich and cut the defense budget in half, we will STILL be bankrupt in 20 years or so without real entitlement reform.

 

that IS what it's going to look like, provided they are able to do it sometime in the next 2 or 3 years. that is the only path that can realistically be swallowed by both sides that also has any chance of actually working. if they keep dicking around while digging the hole deeper, then the cuts and new taxes when they actually come will have to be much more austere. I had some slight optimism it would get done when this debt ceiling deal was struck. but seeing the names on this "supercommittee" tempers my optimism significantly.

[bpwallace49]

pretty disappointed with the choices all around.

 

so I guess now they do nothing but posture toward public opinion while demagoguing each other, and then LOUDLY bluff each other about letting the automatic spending cuts in the debt ceiling bill go into effect. so in other words, lots more "OH NOES, THE TEA PARTY TERRORISTS ARE GONNA STARVE GRAMMA TO PROTECT TAX CUTS FOR PRIVATE JET OWNERS!"

 

Try to look at it both ways Az. While the left will probably do what you say, the right will shriek and stonewall about any discussion of any tax increases. because whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, if a loophole is eliminated, then that will be a "GMOZ TAX INCREASE! WHY DO YOU HATE THE RICH? CLASS WARFARE, CLASS WARFARE! WHY ARE YOU RAISING TAXES ON THE JOB CREATORS? WHAT ABOUT YOLANDA BUYING RED BULL?"

 

If you really look at eliminating exemptions rasing taxes then there will be howling from the right, because that is interpreted by the tea Party as a tax increase.

 

Impasse and posturing all around.

[Azazello1313]

Try to look at it both ways Az. While the left will probably do what you say, the right will shriek and stonewall about any discussion of any tax increases. because whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, if a loophole is eliminated, then that will be a "GMOZ TAX INCREASE! WHY DO YOU HATE THE RICH? CLASS WARFARE, CLASS WARFARE! WHY ARE YOU RAISING TAXES ON THE JOB CREATORS? WHAT ABOUT YOLANDA BUYING RED BULL?"

 

If you really look at eliminating exemptions rasing taxes then there will be howling from the right, because that is interpreted by the tea Party as a tax increase.

 

Impasse and posturing all around.

 

that's why I said the only way out of this (and it is actually a very GOOD way out all around) is full-on tax reform that sacrifices all of our sacrosanct little write-offs (we call them "loopholes" when they apply to other people) and then flattens and lowers rates dramatically -- tinkered to the point where it increases revenue slightly. nobody loves it -- the left dislikes it because it removes some of their methods for social engineering through the tax code, and because it will smell to them in some ways like "tax cuts for the rich"; and the right dislikes it because it increases govt revenue as a share of GDP and is therefore fundamentally a "tax increase". but the right likes the lowering of rates, the left likes the increase in revenue, and that little bit of pragmatist that I hope lives in many on both sides likes it for the fact that something gets done, and gets done in a way that experts on both sides say will be growth-enhancing. and again, that is the only way it happens, with this kind of significant tax overhaul.

 

I feel safe saying that it will NOT happen leaving the tax code as it is, with the bush tax cuts in place. the left is too invested in making sure that doesn't happen. and it will NOT happen leaving the tax code as it is except for raising the rates for the rich (which only gets you an extra $1 trillion over the next decade, anyway, against a projected $14 trillion deficit over the same time frame). the right is too invested in making sure that doesn't happen. how stupid that they are at such loggerheads over such a relatively tiny difference in revenue, but in a way it's quite fortunate, because the one way out it leaves is a much more sensible system than the one we currently have anyway.

[yo mama]

who cares? If these 12 folks can't get along there is a "dead man switch" and spending automatically gets cut. I say we just skip to that part, since the "no tax" republicans can basically get what they want by doing nothing.

[Square]

the left dislikes it because it removes some of their methods for social engineering through the tax code

You don't think the right has any interest in social engineering through the tax code? Marriage tax breaks? Deductions for house purchases? Those don't sound real left wingy to me. I'd be for getting rid of all of them if they can make it make sense. A simpler tax code would great overall.

[bpwallace49]

that's why I said the only way out of this (and it is actually a very GOOD way out all around) is full-on tax reform that sacrifices all of our sacrosanct little write-offs (we call them "loopholes" when they apply to other people) and then flattens and lowers rates dramatically -- tinkered to the point where it increases revenue slightly. nobody loves it -- the left dislikes it because it removes some of their methods for social engineering through the tax code, and because it will smell to them in some ways like "tax cuts for the rich"; and the right dislikes it because it increases govt revenue as a share of GDP and is therefore fundamentally a "tax increase". but the right likes the lowering of rates, the left likes the increase in revenue, and that little bit of pragmatist that I hope lives in many on both sides likes it for the fact that something gets done, and gets done in a way that experts on both sides say will be growth-enhancing. and again, that is the only way it happens, with this kind of significant tax overhaul.

 

I feel safe saying that it will NOT happen leaving the tax code as it is, with the bush tax cuts in place. the left is too invested in making sure that doesn't happen. and it will NOT happen leaving the tax code as it is except for raising the rates for the rich (which only gets you an extra $1 trillion over the next decade, anyway, against a projected $14 trillion deficit over the same time frame). the right is too invested in making sure that doesn't happen. how stupid that they are at such loggerheads over such a relatively tiny difference in revenue, but in a way it's quite fortunate, because the one way out it leaves is a much more sensible system than the one we currently have anyway.

 

The part that you are leaving out in this analysis is that when we talk about tax loopholes, who really gets this advantage? Yep . . people that can pay lobbyists and accountants to sniff them out. That will mean a tax increase (as interpreted by the Tea Party). As you describe, this will be eliminated by "broadening the base", I.E.- having people that currently do not pay taxes. start to pay taxes, so that the loss of loopholes is offset by increasing the revenue from the bottom up. THAT is what will have the left all pissed off. You will be directly raising taxes broadening the base on the lower end of the fiscal spectrum, while lowering taxes eliminating loopholes on the upper strata. Republicans= happy becasue their base is still being taken care of. Democrats= pissed off becasue you are directly raising taxes on their constituency.

 

Do you favor keeping the capital gains tax at its current rate? If so, isnt that where a disproportionate amount of truly wealthy people generate their income every year versus a "salary"? Because if broadening the base and tax reform is truly the goal, shouldnt that be part of the program (and the only way that the left will go for it)?

[Azazello1313]

The part that you are leaving out in this analysis is that when we talk about tax loopholes, who really gets this advantage? Yep . . people that can pay lobbyists and accountants to sniff them out. That will mean a tax increase (as interpreted by the Tea Party). As you describe, this will be eliminated by "broadening the base", I.E.- having people that currently do not pay taxes. start to pay taxes, so that the loss of loopholes is offset by increasing the revenue from the bottom up. THAT is what will have the left all pissed off.

 

do you realize you're completely contradicting yourself? first you say that the loopholes all benefit the wealthy and connected. and then you say that eliminating the loopholes will just benefit the wealthy and connected.

 

that, and you don't seem to understand what "broadening the tax base" means.

[bpwallace49]

do you realize you're completely contradicting yourself? first you say that the loopholes all benefit the wealthy and connected. and then you say that eliminating the loopholes will just benefit the wealthy and connected.

 

that, and you don't seem to understand what "broadening the tax base" means.

 

Az, what do you define as "broadening the base?"

[Azazello1313]

Az, what do you define as "broadening the base?"

 

the term refers to increasing the amount of income that is subject to taxation by eliminating deductions.

[westvirginia]

the term refers to increasing the amount of income that is subject to taxation by eliminating deductions.

 

 

He and I had this argument three days ago, and even after I explained it to him he still insists it means making poor people pay more taxes.

 

bp, it refers to increasing the pool of money available to taxation by reducing deductions (loopholes) if you like. I don't know how much facking plainer we can make it. And you completely ignore the fact that THE ONLY PEOPLE BENEFITTED BY LOOPHOLES ARE THOSE THAT PAY TAXES ANYWAY, AND THEY WILL PAY MORE IF YOU REDUCE DEDUCTIONS. You are so paralyzed by the thought that obamessiah might not just get to soak the rich for more, that any other plan sends you into dt's.

[bpwallace49]

the term refers to increasing the amount of income that is subject to taxation by eliminating deductions.

 

ahh . .so that by eliminating all deductions, it will broaden the base by increasing the portion of what individual income is subject to taxation? I see that as being the part that the Republicans (mainly Tea Party) will never agree to. It brings up the effective vs marginal argumnets again, does it not?

 

The other interpretation of "broadening the base" that is being thrown around (mainly by scare tactics of the left) is that you will be increasing the people that are paying taxes to offset the inevitable tax reduction for the Republican base, which is needed for the Tea Parties acceptance of any deal. It will take people that pay little or no tax now, and have them pay taxes. The main way I have seen this suggested is through removal of the mortgage deduction. So that people that make say . . . 30K now and do not pay any federal taxes, would now start paying federal taxes to offset the upper income elimination of deductions.

 

Are there other deductions that you have seen that would "broaden the base" yet result in the Tea party base paying the same or LESS in taxes that somehow does not result in an increase on people lower on the fiscal ladder? Seriously asking here . . . because if as you suggest, this only eliminates deductions, then in order to get the Tea Party to sign on taxes must be lowered or constant. That math doesnt seem to work without increasing the number of net payers into the system, correct?

[yo mama]

the term refers to increasing the amount of income that is subject to taxation by eliminating deductions.

True, but technically it refers to anything that increases the amount of income subject to tax. So it could also include, for example, increasing the number of taxpayers subject to tax. In some cases you can actually raise more revenue by reducing tax rates, but increasing the number of taxpayers subject to tax.

 

That's my biggest problem with the "cut taxes" mentality today. You can't cut taxes - without increasing the tax base - and expect revenues to stay the same. Historically, tax cuts led to more spending, which led to growth, which increased the tax base. These days if you give someone a tax cut they're more likely to save or pay down debt, which doesn't lead to growth as quickly. (Though it does create more financial stability for the savers, which has its own merits).

Edited August 12, 2011 by yo mama

[bpwallace49]

True, but technically it refers to anything that increases the amount of income subject to tax. So it could also include, for example, increasing the number of taxpayers subject to tax. In some cases you can actually actually raise more revenue by reducing tax rates, but increasing the number of taxpayers subject to tax.

 

That's my biggest problem with the "cut taxes" mentality today. You can't cut taxes - without increasing the tax base - and expect revenues to stay the same. Historically, tax cuts led to more spending, which led to growth, which increased the tax base. These days if you give someone a tax cut they're more likely to save or pay down debt, which doesn't lead to growth as quickly. (Though it does create more financial stability for the savers, which has its own merits).

 

That is EXACTLY what I was working towards.

 

But you sure write purdyier then me . . .

[tazinib1]

very disappointed. I thought for sure I would be listed.

[westvirginia]

True, but technically it refers to anything that increases the amount of income subject to tax. So it could also include, for example, increasing the number of taxpayers subject to tax. In some cases you can actually raise more revenue by reducing tax rates, but increasing the number of taxpayers subject to tax.

 

That's my biggest problem with the "cut taxes" mentality today. You can't cut taxes - without increasing the tax base - and expect revenues to stay the same. Historically, tax cuts led to more spending, which led to growth, which increased the tax base. These days if you give someone a tax cut they're more likely to save or pay down debt, which doesn't lead to growth as quickly. (Though it does create more financial stability for the savers, which has its own merits).

 

This is patently false, been proven so many times, and you know it.

[yo mama]

This is patently false, been proven so many times, and you know it.

Are you suggesting that consumer spending does NOT lead to economic growth? Or that economic growth does NOT leading to an increased tax base?

 

Because if that's what you're suggesting I'd appreciate if you backed it up with something more than monosyllabic hyperbole.

[Clubfoothead]

I like Pelosi's choices

[westvirginia]

Are you suggesting that consumer spending does NOT lead to economic growth? Or that economic growth does NOT leading to an increased tax base?

 

Because if that's what you're suggesting I'd appreciate if you backed it up with something more than monosyllabic hyperbole.

 

 

You know, yo, I read it wrong. I thought it said "tax cuts lead to increased deficits". My bad, seriously.

 

ETA, it DOES look like you're saying a decrease in rates always creates decreased revenue (in retrospect). That's not true, if that's what you're implying.

Edited August 12, 2011 by westvirginia