Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


Eight days left: Was super committee a bad idea from the start?

As the Nov. 23 deadline to propose a plan to trim $1.2 trillion from the federal deficit approaches, many in Congress are saying that that super committee should never have been created.

By Staff writer / November 16, 2011

Members of the US Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, known as the 'super committee,' listen to testimony earlier this month on Capitol HIll.

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters/File

Enlarge

Washington

On Aug. 2, with the nation on the brink of its first-ever default on the national debt, the option of punting the tough decisions to a “super committee” with a fixed deadline seemed like a good way out. But now, just eight days out, many lawmakers are signaling buyers’ remorse.

Skip to next paragraph

For some, it’s the fact that the committee has conducted its work almost entirely in secret, but for the occasional unconfirmed leak. For others, it’s the prospect of cuts to signature programs – or tax hikes – with no further say for Congress, other than an up-or-down vote.

By law, the joint deficit reduction committee must report to Congress by Nov. 23, and both the House and Senate must take the plan to a simple majority vote, without possibility of amendment or filibuster. If the panel fails to produce a plan or Congress fails to pass it or the president fails to sign it, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts take effect in 2013.

“It was a bad idea from the start,” says Rep. Rush Holt (D) of New Jersey, a member of the Progressive Caucus. “Congress should never have relinquished its powers to a committee.”

“A lot of my constituents are saying: I sure hope they fail, because whatever they come up with is going to be awful,” he adds. “Now the interesting thing is that if they fail, what comes up is awful, too. The whole thing is as disastrous formulation that won’t work will if it succeeds and won’t work well if it fails.”

In a bid to gets its issues on the super committee agenda, the Progressive Caucus held its own ad hoc hearing on Wednesday to focus attention on the need to invest in job creation. “For this nation to succeed, the super committee must fail,” said witness Bob Borosage, president of the Institute for America’s Future.

“We ought to be having a fierce argument about how to create jobs,” he adds. “Instead, the super committee is pushing austerity. This is simply folly.”  

The 12-member deficit-reduction panel solicited recommendations from standing committees of the Congress, but there have been no subsequent public hearing vetting the claims of one committee’s priorities against another.

“They spent all this time working on farm programs, which is the tail of the dog,” says Rep. Jack Kingston (R) of Georgia. “The big money is in food stamps, school lunches, and WIC [the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children]. Will the super committee deal with it? Hell, no.”

A coalition of public-interest groups has called on the super committee for a higher standard of transparency, as well as a moratorium on fundraising by members of the panel, because the stakes are so high. Instead, with the exception of four public informational hearings, most of the committee’s deliberations have been behind closed doors. 

Permissions

Read Comments

View reader comments | Comment on this story