Common sense dictates that the super committee will put together a deal that will cut government spending, increase taxes on only the wealthiest Americans and corporations, and avoid the automatic budget cuts that will be required by law if the super committee fails. But this is Washington, and that probably isn't going to happen, which means there will be "winners" and "losers" inside the nation's capital.
First, let's examine who the "losers" will be.
First, are Congressional Republicans, since the American people are starting to see through their tactics of just blocking everything, because anything that passes is ostensibly good for the president. It has been a shrewd political strategy since President Barack Obama took office. It has driven Democrats crazy and it helped Republicans win back the House of Representatives. But Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell can only go to that well so many times. Americans now think that Republicans control Congress, and any failure by Congress will now land on the heads of Republicans.
The second big loser will be the Defense Department. The Pentagon is on the hook for some massive cuts if the super committee fails. One can only hope that if this happens, the cuts will come from ridiculous programs like MEADS -- a missile defense program that no one wants (except one contractor) and will cost the taxpayers even more money, to the tune of $800 million. Already 10 years behind schedule, it's a "missile to nowhere," and the system's first test scheduled this week is not designed to actually hit anything, but merely to demonstrate that it can be shot into the air.
But rather than cutting funding for politically protected programs like MEADS, I am afraid that it will leave our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq without the tools they need to complete their missions. Hence, the other losers if the super committee fails could be our troops and that would be a darn shame.
OK, so who will be the winners if the super committee fails?
To me, the biggest winner will be the president, simply because what is bad for Congressional Republicans is good for the White House. We all know that the president plans to run against a "do nothing" Congress, and what is more "do nothing" than Congress failing to reach a deal that Congress itself designed? I think the Republican leadership in Congress knows that if the super committee fails, it will be bad politics. I just don't think the Tea Partiers in the House will support any kind of compromise and therefore, the super committee is doomed to fail.
Politically speaking, it may be good news for the president if the super committee fails. However, I know the president understands that the real losers will be the American people because if the super committee cannot come to an agreement, it could very well send shockwaves through Wall Street and Main Street. With millions of folks already unemployed or underemployed, the last thing our nation needs is another manmade economic catastrophe.
Like the president, I hope the super committee succeeds and our country can continue on the road to recovery. But I have my doubts, only because over the last year, Congress has failed to do anything right. Dear readers, I have long preached political moderation and the need for compromise. Those ideals keep the country moving forward and either side from becoming too powerful. Let's hope moderation and compromise wins the day in Congress. If not, any political victory for the president will be bittersweet.
Sen. Bernie Sanders: Democrats, Stop Caving In
Ellen Brown: Super Committee Deadlock: Heads They Win, Tails We Lose
It's creation was an ultimate cop-out to begin with, and only delayed inevitable bad choices.
Disappointing that our legislative government has sunk to such a low.
During the second world war, public service was a venture done by our citizens for the benefit of our nation as a whole. Many lost their lives. Few if any got rich for their service. Now, times are different as the pension for Mr. Paterno shows. In my opinion, it is a sign of a sad state of affairs for our nation.
We currently are suffering a significant disparity between the rich and poor. At the same time, we are engaged in a war that we began a decade ago, a preventive war that has called upon the poor and the middle class of our nation to fight and to possibly die on behalf of our nation.
To call upon the poor and the middle class to offer up their lives for our nation while denying them universal health care and other government supported programs is a violation of our national values. I am not here talking about socialism versus capitalism. I am speaking of Americanism. It is time for our political leaders to repair our system for the benefit of us all.
Drop corporate rates. Let companies invest again and create jobs. Working Americans take less from the safety net and provide more in taxes.
The members of the "super committee". How many millions have they garnered in campaign contributions and lobbyist perks since being appointed? A whole lot more then those NOT on the committee.............
The Biggest losers?
US
Whatever the final outcome, we will be the ones paying for it............not the 1%.
Best government money can buy......................................and it shows.
OCCUPY THE SUPER COMMITTE!!Â!
"So why is our economy barely growing and unemployment stuck at over 9 percent? I believe the answer is very simple: Economic freedom is declining in the U.S. In 2000, the U.S. was ranked third in the world behind only Hong Kong and Singapore in the Index of Economic Freedom, published annually by this newspaper and the Heritage Foundation. In 2011, we fell to ninth behind such countries as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Ireland.
The reforms we need to make are extensive. I want to make a few suggestions that, as an independent, I hope will stimulate thinking and constructive discussion among concerned Americans no matter what their politics are.
Most importantly, we need to radically cut the size and cost of government. One hundred years ago the total cost of government at all levels in the U.S. -- local, state and federal -- was only 8 percent of our GDP. In 2010, it was 40 percent. Government is gobbling up trillions of dollars from our economy to feed itself through high taxes and unprecedented deficit spending -- money that could instead be used by individuals to improve their lives and by entrepreneurs to create jobs."
And what don't you get about now 15,000,000,000,000 in debt reached just today, that too has nothing to do with size of govt. and demand.
so what you're saying is that to ensure a fast growing economy that an oppressive form of government should be adopted, or allowed. that doesn't sound like anything i remember from civics class.
and yes, the size of government sure does have an impact on the economy. witness farm subsidies. the government gifts factory farms taxpayer money, effectively stamping out the ability of smaller farms to compete. then welcomes lobbying as regulatory agencies work with corporate farms to effect self-serving policies. leading to such idiocies as making the legal route towards establishing an organic farm so costly and complex that it reduces competition despite the possibility of much healthier products.
the government has been corrupted, and no longer serves the common interest. therefore it must be pruned so that healthier growth can ensue.
I never expect you liberals to understand that the more govt. the less freedom. Yes, we need regulations but we add 1000's of new legislation and regulation each year and never eliminate any. It's smothering and suffocating businesses and costing job, and send those jobs and tax revenues overseas.
Yes - there are loop holes that give certain multi-nationals unfair advantages and giant loop holes so they pay little or no taxes. Whole Foods doesn't get those loopholes and pays about the top corporate tax.
But who passed the laws that allow these loopholes? Wall Street? wrong zip code ...