More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Jared Bernstein

GET UPDATES FROM Jared Bernstein
 

How Does a Supercommittee Die?

Posted: 11/21/11 09:56 PM ET

Not with a bang but a whimper.

Not a surprise, but disheartening on many levels. Let us count the ways:

Dysfunctionality: The deficit reduction committee grew out of the debt ceiling debacle, and any child of that process was doomed to disappoint. It's yet another example of legislators turning to a process solution as opposed to doing their jobs. The Congress is largely dysfunctional, unable to craft policy solutions to our biggest challenges.

A Pox on One of Their Houses: The Democrats on the committee went much further onto the Republicans side of the field, offering plans that were to the right of Simpson-Bowles or Gang of Six in terms of balancing spending cuts and revenue increases. The Republicans came a slight bit out of their comfort zone by offering minor revenues ($300 billion at one point) but offset this by a factor of 10+ by offering it only in tandem with locking in the Bush cuts, costing $3.6 trillion.

The Wrong Deficit:
The deficit we should be fighting now is not the budget deficit: it's the jobs deficit, but policies to help on that front are nowhere to be seen (Democrats tried, I believe, to extend the payroll tax cut and Unemployment Insurance extension but never even got close).

No Deal Better Than Bad Deal: The automatic cuts take place in 2013. Though they lack balance (they're all cuts; no revenues) they're a better deal than plans that were being kicked around by the committee in its dying days. Some versions of those plans were too harsh to Medicare beneficiaries and, as noted, locked in the Bush tax cuts.

That Is, as Long as the Trigger Holds: Republicans are already talking about reconfiguring the trigger to cut defense less and non-defense more, something Democrats must stand firmly against. If it is shown -- and as of yet, this case has not been made -- that cuts of $55 billion per year on the $500+ billion defense budget actually compromise national security, then the only acceptable alternative is to reduce cuts to the non-defense budget or raise the needed revenues to achieve the required deficit reduction.

(By the way, I see here that Gov. Romney is complaining about "a $600 billion cut to our military." That's a 10-year figure, to be compared to about a defense budget of about $6 trillion.)

Is There Anything to Feel Good About Here? The only thing I can think of is that the Republicans did admit that new revenues need to be part of a deal... like I said, they hardly crossed that Rubicon before running back to the other shore advocating for huge tax cuts. But, sad to say, in this day and age, that was progress.

Also, I should note that the 10-year U.S. Treasury bill ended the day with a yield below 2%. Markets still view the U.S. as a safe port in a stormy world. Even our Congress has been unable to destroy our standing, though not for lack of trying.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 91
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Secrist
those who forget are condemned to repeat
10:31 PM on 11/22/2011
Don't tell me you can't cut 1.5% a year from defense. The super committee was never intended to agree on anything. They didn't try. In fact, it would require quite an effort NOT to.be able to come up with a 1.5% car!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jarhead Vet
Eliot Spitzer for President!!!
02:29 PM on 11/22/2011
Hey Mr. Bernstein. You seem to be an educated man, although most of the time I see you on TV you're so 'glass half full' you make it sound like unemployment will be 4% if we just listen to the President a little more.

Sure... Yeah... 3.5 years and counting...

I said this yesterday and I said this the day the Stupid Congress was announced:

Anyone who thinks this Stupid Congress is anything more than a smoke screen to placate the debt ceiling debacle is trying to sell you something.
Anyone who thinks the members of the Stupid Congress would actually work together and come to anything resembling and agreement needs a serious reality check.
And ANYONE who thought that Congress would paint itself into a corner with 'etched in stone' triggers needs to go back on their medication.

To those of you who still thinks this is about left and right... shame on you. Every last one of them, INCLUDING the President, (ok, I'll give you Sen. Bernie Sanders) is on the take from Special Interests in one form or another.

This is all smoke and mirrors and most of you are still falling for it it seems.

You want to do something meaningful and important? Click on this link: www.getmoneyout.com

If you want to call your rep. go ahead and do that too... But odds are they honestly don't care... Even if they say they do...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Awake-and-Sing
named after a great play written by Clifford Odets
12:19 PM on 11/22/2011
Thank goodness the Supercommittee failed. That is the best case scenario for progressives.

The Bush tax cuts will expire in two years and then we'll get the revenue we need. (While we are at it, stop treating capital gains as if it is somehow different than other income and lift the cap on FICA tax so that Donal Trump and Koch Brothers pay at least the same effective rate in tax as their maid, janitors and secretaries.)

These "defense" cuts can be an excuse to root out the gravy train of corporate welfare that is the Pentagon.
photo
warloch2
Spraying cold reality from the hose of truth.
02:16 PM on 11/22/2011
Awake,
It is time for you to wake up or better yet stop lying.
:-)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Awake-and-Sing
named after a great play written by Clifford Odets
02:20 PM on 11/22/2011
Most Conservatives wouldn't know truth or facts if it came up and bit them in the butt. They listen to Fox "News", watch Rush Limbaugh, don't believe in evolution and don't believe in global warming despite the 98% agreement of the world's scientists.

Not to mention, they excuse George W. Bush for actually LYING the nation into War in Iraq.

You just aren't used to hearing truth. Get used to a LOT more of it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Awake-and-Sing
named after a great play written by Clifford Odets
02:23 PM on 11/22/2011
I know you are not used to hearing the truth, so it sounds like lies.

Get back to us when you turn off Fox "News" and condemn George W. Bush for LYING the nation into war.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wonmean
University of Michigan Class of 2010
03:37 PM on 11/22/2011
Agreed.

"These "defense" cuts can be an excuse to root out the gravy train of corporate welfare"

Only if Democrats don't cave.
And they don't have a good track record on that.
12:14 PM on 11/22/2011
Re: "The Congress is largely dysfunctional..."

...because their are too many Republicans; and especially because there are too many irrational, unreasonable, arrogant and obstinate Republicans. Point of fact: The Committee was doomed by the fact that all 6 of the GOP members are proud pledge-signers of the Norquist "Nonsense-ical-No-tax-not-now-not-ever" Club.

Since surrendering their freedom of choice to Grover, the GOP acts like a surreal collection of puppet-like automatons, all walking in lockstep, all eerily speaking the same words, and all with no real sense of common sense! These Norquistians have drunk the Kool-Aid; they’re frighteningly spooky; and they are blatantly derelict in performing their duties as public-servants. This has earned them the well-deserved nickname: "The Stupid Party!" And they're why Congress is dysfunctional!
11:58 AM on 11/22/2011
The Super Committee was a great event for our Democracy, our economy, and our DEBT and DEFICIT issues. Failure to reach an agreement means that the Bush Tax Cuts are still scheduled to expire right as the spending cut begin. The last time this tax table was in place, the economy was flourishing and the Annual Budget was in SURPLUS. Instead of a mediocre $1.2 Trillion reduction in the projected DEBT over the next 10 years, the restoration of the Clinton Tax Schedules means that the project DEBT will fall by about $8 Trillion. Most of the additional tax revenue will come from our extremely wealthy families. This is a GREAT VICTORY for Fairness and Common Sense. Failure of the Super Committee is SALVATION for the average family. IT'S TIME TO CELEBRATE!!!!!
11:39 AM on 11/22/2011
Across that whole decade, the CBO currently projects that the federal government will spend $45.77 trillion. The deficit committee was charged with trimming deficit spending by just $1.2 trillion, which could have been achieved by cutting that $45.77 trillion in spending by just 2.6 percent. (Really, it would have necessitated cutting spending even less than that, because any cut in spending also reduces future interest payments on the debt.)

To be clear, this wouldn’t have resulted in an actual cut in federal spending. Instead, annual federal spending would still have been 24 percent higher (on average) over the next decade than it was last year. Really, the deficit committee didn’t need to cut spending at all (in relation to 2011 spending). It simply needed to shave 12 cents off of every dollar of projected increases in spending. Yet, in the face of a $15 trillion national debt, the deficit committee couldn’t figure out how to do even this. It couldn’t bear to force the federal government to make do with just $44.57 trillion over the next decade, instead of $45.77 trillion.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Awake-and-Sing
named after a great play written by Clifford Odets
12:07 PM on 11/22/2011
Occupy has stopped the tea party dead in its tracks and even if that is all they do in America, that will have been enough. Thank you, Occupy!

Don't worry. You'll get used to paying your fair share again when the unnecessary and immoral Bush wartime tax cuts expire.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ostrom808
Moral Contrarian
11:30 AM on 11/22/2011
Thank you, Mr. Bernstein for your continuing work to get the message out.

What with you having both feet planted firmly in reality in this regard, it is no surprise you left the Obama administration.

Kudos, sir.
photo
cyclone70
if there was a time to reach for the pitchfork
10:52 AM on 11/22/2011
Looking at the wrong deficit is correct, jared mentions the jobs deficit.

but we need to dig deeper into that jobs deficit and look at the trade deficit - the far more important deficit as it pertains to jobs

the trade deficit is the measure of jobs, assetts, technology leaving the country

for every billion dollars of trade deficit = between 10,000 and 20,000 jobs lost

righting our trade imbalances goes a very long way to fiurst stopping the job losses and then increasing jobs as we once again begin producing what we consume for ousrselves rather than importing goods and exporting jobs
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jarhead Vet
Eliot Spitzer for President!!!
02:41 PM on 11/22/2011
You really believe Apple and GE are going to let anyone raise import taxes over 2.5%?

Hah!

Good luck with that. Our glorious leader can't even remove Geitner. What makes you think he or congress has a chance or even want to?

Sorry mate. I totally 100% completely agree with you right up to the part where some current elected official is going to stand up against special interests and lobbyists.

This country has just GOTTA HAVE their iPod and iPhone! They just gotta! Who cares if Apple is sitting on 80 billion in cash and can't be bothered to manufacture so much as a single Nano here domestically. Just gimmie that iPad for 99 bucks! Who cares if my neighbors havn't had a job in 2 years.

And yeah... I know... Nothing is made domestically anymore by any company... But you know what? Only Apple is claiming to be the richest most profitable AMERICAN company ever. An AMERICAN company who milked the tax code for every penny and made a killing on Chinese slave labor.

Yes... Tell me why I should feel proud about this AMERICAN company again?

I'm done. www.getmoneyout.com
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
09:28 AM on 11/22/2011
Dems on committee wanted to cut Medicare Part D, that massive giveaway to Big Pharma passed by Repub Congress, signed by Bush. Repubs do not want it cut, they love it - it prevents Medicare from importing drugs, keeps drug profits high. __ In no way were Dems "to the right of Simpson-Bowles" for suggesting cutting subsidies to drug corporations. Medicare goes to the medical industry, we seniors never get a check. It's a cut in their benefits, not ours. Original Medicare covered only "major medical", we should go back to that.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Awake-and-Sing
named after a great play written by Clifford Odets
12:08 PM on 11/22/2011
Or at least allow the Federal Government to negotiate down drug prices for Medicare like any other bulk purchaser in the open market, as it may already do for the V.A. system.

Medicare Part D wasn't created to be a "benefit" for seniors, it was created to be corporate welfare for big pharma.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wikwox
So there I was, playing the piano....
08:31 AM on 11/22/2011
Come on, you knew the "super" committee was doomed from day one, that this end run around democracy was a super loser. But there is hope, Obama has already promised to veto any bill that tries to exempt the military from a budget cut. In your face Military Industrial Complex! So let the posturing and the ringing patriotic phrases begin as both sides attempt to wrap themselves, and thier chunk of the military money pie in the flag and thus make it sacred.
photo
SeenItBefore
Ya want to super size that?
09:36 AM on 11/22/2011
A hollow threat if there is a Republican in the White house come 2013.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Gudrun
My micro-bio is empty
11:33 AM on 11/22/2011
There won't be. None of their candidates can get enough votes to be elected.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Awake-and-Sing
named after a great play written by Clifford Odets
12:09 PM on 11/22/2011
I'm not worried. Conservatives are headed for their biggest electoral shellacking since 1964.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Awake-and-Sing
named after a great play written by Clifford Odets
12:11 PM on 11/22/2011
The Pentagon is the biggest corporate welfare gravy train there is. Cutting about 500 billion is only disastrous if you are the CEO of a "defense" contractor making a weapons system we no longer need or the Pentagon doesn't even want, or a conservative politician who takes campaign money from the military-industrial complex.

Let's start by closing all of these unnecessary military bases in Dixie, which votes conservatism on to the rest of us while being heavily subsidized by the federal government. Mississippi gets $2.02 for every dollar it contributes. Let's close one of their two Air Force bases. Make conservatives live under the ideology the try to vote onto everyone else but don't want to live under themselves.
08:12 AM on 11/22/2011
Maybe the answer is a supersubcommittee.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Josh Steinhauer
Ex-Patriot, Europe
07:52 AM on 11/22/2011
The committee failed because it was setup to fail from the beginning, both sides were told what they could and could not negotiate and to not deviate from that party line. I know the DoD is the favorite punching bag but people need to understand that the DoD employs hundreds of thousands of people from defense contracts to contractors and government civilians.
The economy is in the crapper, there is no denying that and one way to improve the economy is for the government to spend on programs that create jobs. I hate to say this but the DoD has programs that create jobs, a lot of jobs and is currently doing that. To cut them deeply means you are going to cut tens of thousands of jobs in the civilian sector that supports them and the government sector that buys off the private sector.
Taxes need to be part of the solution, but so do cuts in programs that are not generating income and are liabilities. Our social programs generate tremendous amounts of liabilities yet they employ very few people. It is a hard argument to say we should spend more on social programs that generate few jobs when there are DoD programs that create tens of thousands of jobs
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Trismegistus22
Crescat virtus per certaminem.
09:01 AM on 11/22/2011
I am personally in favor of major cuts in the War Department. But...:
Major part of budget is personnel costs. Raises and benefits, signing bonuses and veterans care are about half of the DoD budget.
Eliminating weapon projects is the next way to cut. We really need to look at the next decade or two and determine military needs. We need to decide how much we need yet another fighter or carrier, etc. The problem there is the unintended consequences. Cutting weapons projects will cause some job loss.
The US can no longer be the police force of the world. A slow draw down of our military is needed. That is planning for the future. Already the US has the largest military budget in the world. Do we truly need to spend more than the rest of the world in total?

Again, as always, we must recognize that the baseline question is about the responsibility of the citizen to fellow citizens and to our community as a whole. How sad and immoral would it be to eliminate support for veterans, senior citizens, at-risk children and handicapped folks so that we can keep and enlarge our military-industrial complex?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ostrom808
Moral Contrarian
11:31 AM on 11/22/2011
Yes, but guvmint revenue spent on defense creates far fewer jobs than if we dedicated those same funds to the domestic arena.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
09:32 AM on 11/22/2011
Private insurers create 500,000 jobs, all of them useless. They raise the cost of insurance 20% over single-payer like Medicare, they work to deny coverage. Doctors hire people to argue with them, some hospitals have more billing clerks than beds. __ Private health insurance creates millions of jobs we wouldn't have if we had single-payer. That's why it's bad, not good. Jobs cost the country, make living more expensive. __ Same with the military: creates 1.5M soldier jobs, lots of weapons jobs. That's bad, costs taxpayers, creates the deficit. There are a lot more productive jobs to be done, instead of making expensive things that blow up and kill people.
07:24 AM on 11/22/2011
The US can reduce its deficit fairly easily because our income taxes are far too low. From 1945 to 1980 income taxes averaged near 12% of GDP. Reagan reduced marginal tax rates so much that they fell close to 9%. Clinton increase them back to 12%; and Bush/Obama reduced them again to 9 %(and below). However, on budget expenses have remained 12%(+/-1%)) of normalized GDP throughout. The deficit in income taxes has been financed by borrowing, largely from the Social Security trust fund. But, not only can we no longer continue to borrow from the trust funds, we have to start paying money back as beneficiaries start relying on the trust funds. In the short term, we have to raise income taxes to 12%, simply to cover on budget expenses. In the long term, income taxes must rise above 12% in order to pay back the trust funds.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Trismegistus22
Crescat virtus per certaminem.
09:03 AM on 11/22/2011
And don't forget that we have cut the payroll taxes which go to Soc Sec and that money needs to be replaced.
07:21 AM on 11/22/2011
The bottom line is this: The Super Committee members and the Congress should LIVE like the 99% (same lower salaries, same insurance costs, same tax profile, no insider information exemptions) so that they can legislate for the 99% - and not the 1% elite.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wonmean
University of Michigan Class of 2010
03:56 PM on 11/22/2011
That won't happen until we have a campaign finance reform so that politicians don't need a truckload of money to even campaign, let alone get elected.

So... yea. When's that happening?
07:14 AM on 11/22/2011
This died as planned, because Obama works for the political not the people. Ads and claims blaming the GOP by Obama and his supporters were everywhere. Obama has kicked this can for the last 2 1/2 years. Focus on revenues when the best way is to slow/cut spending. That was the Hobson’s choice and evil rhetoric that led to failure. Plus the Dems did not take yes for an answer. The $250B of revenues was not as good as the same amount from the Bush Tax cuts. Imagine?
In case anyone is counting, the Bush tax cuts have already been repealed when you look at the $$$ of tax increases scheduled by 2013 by Obama. He has raised $6 of permanent revenues for every $1 of permanent tax cuts. (Tan tax, swipe fee, HC tax, etc).
Obama has fooled the people into thinking one bucket in Washington pays for another bucket, when in fact it operates as a big leaky bathtub.
Obama could have paid for HC with the Bush tax cuts. But he raised taxes for that (Please anyone that believes the savings needs to look at the government’s record on that. Never happens. Ever). But the greedy Dems want even more targeting the Bush tax cuts.
So what we have still are no real cuts that would take us off the course fiscal and economic disaster. And Obama, who like the wizard of Oz still denies responsibility, and is still wholly accountable.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Trismegistus22
Crescat virtus per certaminem.
09:08 AM on 11/22/2011
Stop playing the fox/gop blame game. You and others happily point to a set of random factoids without even trying to see the whole picture.
Our nation is dysfunctional; not only the government.
Try to present some positive workable ideas. If nothing else, those ideas would make for a constructive conversation.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pogo Bock
Not dead.
10:08 AM on 11/22/2011
Well, if we did everything your way, we wouldn't be a dysfuncitonal nation, would we? Just a dictatorship.
06:05 PM on 11/22/2011
I have posted plenty toward that end. Here is one. Government should ask two questions on everything they do. Will it create jobs and not borrow money. Those are the things to do. Making dopey assumptions is also part of the problem, isn’t it?
Also leadership. Hmmm?
Obama is running the show... Read my posts and you will see that once Obama canned the performance officer and Orzag left, my posts warned about all these things well in advance so they were knowable.
And in case you can’t see what the positive recommendation is, it is asking the government to govern (look up the root of the word) and do their job without breaking the bank. It is amazing we need to do this.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mark331blue
Left leaning independent
09:56 AM on 11/22/2011
Thirty years of supply-side have destroyed the economy. If the Dems are guilty of anything, it's cowardice. To blame them for anything other than standing around with their thumbs up their keisters is ideological tripe.
06:11 PM on 11/22/2011
Nonsense. The Dems have squandered the stimulus, plundered the treasury and still want to spend more money and raise more taxes.

How about just asking them to stop doing what they have been doing. Here are two things that create jobs and save money:

1. Stop the NLRB's baseless case. Read it before commenting. It is based upon an off the cuff remark years ago. Let Boeing build that plant in SC right away.

2. Let the XL Pipeline be built. It passed all environmental hurdles, and there are already 50 pipelines through Nebraska. Canada has an oil and gas economy on our backs. You will see this creates jobs as well.
In BOTH cases the decision is for these jobs to be created here, or they go overseas. Obama I the one that is lazy and making political decisions.