Fuck its silent in here.......

[Chuck to Chuck]

SUPER 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.

Holy shit is this a pathetic and cowardly idea.

It would be a lot better if the SuperCongressmen would get to wear superhero costumes. Gridlock on the Hill? Bill getting fillibustered in the Senate? You could just see Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jim Clyburn, John Lewis, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa, and Eric Cantor step off the floor and into one of 12 strategically-placed phone booths to come out as their own super-action hero SuperCongressman!

I'd be impressed if they could find 12 phone booths.

Isn't the real story that there are 523 people with jobs in DC and all their supporting staff that are superfluous? Maybe we shrink the budget by firing them all and shuttering their offices.

[Brownie]

SUPER 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.

Holy shit is this a pathetic and cowardly idea.

It would be a lot better if the SuperCongressmen would get to wear superhero costumes. Gridlock on the Hill? Bill getting fillibustered in the Senate? You could just see Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jim Clyburn, John Lewis, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa, and Eric Cantor step off the floor and into one of 12 strategically-placed phone booths to come out as their own super-action hero SuperCongressman!

I'd be impressed if they could find 12 phone booths.

Isn't the real story that there are 523 people with jobs in DC and all their supporting staff that are superfluous? Maybe we shrink the budget by firing them all and shuttering their offices.

This all comes back to another solution: instead of a consolidated "Super Congress," how about just expanding the number of seats to something like 6,000? Then you cut Congressional pay and allowances to a  12th of what they are now, have Congressional sessions occur via teleconference so they don't even have to decamp in DC, and see how many parties are represented in Congress then.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

SUPER 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.

Holy shit is this a pathetic and cowardly idea.

It would be a lot better if the SuperCongressmen would get to wear superhero costumes. Gridlock on the Hill? Bill getting fillibustered in the Senate? You could just see Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jim Clyburn, John Lewis, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa, and Eric Cantor step off the floor and into one of 12 strategically-placed phone booths to come out as their own super-action hero SuperCongressman!

I'd be impressed if they could find 12 phone booths.

Isn't the real story that there are 523 people with jobs in DC and all their supporting staff that are superfluous? Maybe we shrink the budget by firing them all and shuttering their offices.

This all comes back to another solution: instead of a consolidated "Super Congress," how about just expanding the number of seats to something like 6,000? Then you cut Congressional pay and allowances to a  12th of what they are now, have Congressional sessions occur via teleconference so they don't even have to decamp in DC, and see how many parties are represented in Congress then.

This is exactly what SKO has been saying since "Attack of the Clones."

[SKO]

SUPER 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.

Holy shit is this a pathetic and cowardly idea.

It would be a lot better if the SuperCongressmen would get to wear superhero costumes. Gridlock on the Hill? Bill getting fillibustered in the Senate? You could just see Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jim Clyburn, John Lewis, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa, and Eric Cantor step off the floor and into one of 12 strategically-placed phone booths to come out as their own super-action hero SuperCongressman!

I'd be impressed if they could find 12 phone booths.

Isn't the real story that there are 523 people with jobs in DC and all their supporting staff that are superfluous? Maybe we shrink the budget by firing them all and shuttering their offices.

This all comes back to another solution: instead of a consolidated "Super Congress," how about just expanding the number of seats to something like 6,000? Then you cut Congressional pay and allowances to a  12th of what they are now, have Congressional sessions occur via teleconference so they don't even have to decamp in DC, and see how many parties are represented in Congress then.

This is exactly what SKO has been saying since "Attack of the Clones."

Nay, but I am for consolidating the power of the legislature in the hands of one Emperor. Provided that he's divinely appointed and will drive Bort and his ilk back to their bomb-making cellars below the city streets.

[Armchair_QB]

SUPER 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.

Holy shit is this a pathetic and cowardly idea.

It would be a lot better if the SuperCongressmen would get to wear superhero costumes. Gridlock on the Hill? Bill getting fillibustered in the Senate? You could just see Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jim Clyburn, John Lewis, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa, and Eric Cantor step off the floor and into one of 12 strategically-placed phone booths to come out as their own super-action hero SuperCongressman!

I'd be impressed if they could find 12 phone booths.

Isn't the real story that there are 523 people with jobs in DC and all their supporting staff that are superfluous? Maybe we shrink the budget by firing them all and shuttering their offices.

This all comes back to another solution: instead of a consolidated "Super Congress," how about just expanding the number of seats to something like 6,000? Then you cut Congressional pay and allowances to a  12th of what they are now, have Congressional sessions occur via teleconference so they don't even have to decamp in DC, and see how many parties are represented in Congress then.

This is exactly what SKO has been saying since "Attack of the Clones."

Nay, but I am for consolidating the power of the legislature in the hands of one Emperor. Provided that he's divinely appointed and will drive Bort and his ilk back to their bomb-making cellars below the city streets.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/08/01/110801ta_talk_surowiecki

The truth is that the United States doesn't need, and shouldn't have, a debt ceiling. Every other democratic country, with the exception of Denmark, does fine without one. There's no debt limit in the Constitution. And, if Congress really wants to hold down government debt, it already has a way to do so that doesn't risk economic chaos—namely, the annual budgeting process. The only reason we need to lift the debt ceiling, after all, is to pay for spending that Congress has already authorized. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, we'll face an absurd scenario in which Congress will have ordered the President to execute two laws that are flatly at odds with each other. If he obeys the debt ceiling, he cannot spend the money that Congress has told him to spend, which is why most government functions will be shut down. Yet if he spends the money as Congress has authorized him to he'll end up violating the debt ceiling.

As it happens, the debt ceiling, which was adopted in 1917, did have a purpose once—it was a way for Congress to keep the President accountable. Congress used to exercise only loose control over the government budget, and the President was able to borrow money and spend money with little legislative oversight. But this hasn't been the case since 1974; Congress now passes comprehensive budget resolutions that detail exactly how the government will tax and spend, and the Treasury Department borrows only the money that Congress allows it to. (It's why TARP, for instance, required Congress to pass a law authorizing the Treasury to act.) This makes the debt ceiling an anachronism. These days, the debt limit actually makes the President less accountable to Congress, not more: if the ceiling isn't raised, it's President Obama who will be deciding which bills get paid and which don't, with no say from Congress.

...

Advocates of the ceiling like the way it turns the national debt into front-page news, focussing the minds of voters and politicians; they think it fosters accountability, straight talk, transparency. In reality, debt-ceiling votes merely perpetuate the illusion that balancing the budget is easy. That's why politicians like the debt ceiling: it allows them to rail against borrowing more money (which voters hate) without having to vote to cut any specific programs or raise taxes (which voters also hate).

You might think that there are benefits to putting negotiators under the gun. But, as the Dutch psychologist Carsten de Dreu has shown, time pressure tends to close minds, not open them. Under time pressure, negotiators tend to rely more on stereotypes and cognitive shortcuts. They don't consider as wide a range of alternatives, and are more likely to jump to conclusions based on scanty evidence. Time pressure also reduces the chances that an agreement will be what psychologists call "integrative"—taking everyone's interests and values into account.

In fact, by turning dealmaking into a game of chicken, the debt ceiling favors fanaticism. As the economist Thomas Schelling showed many years ago, "It does not always help to be, or to be believed to be, fully rational, coolheaded, and in control of oneself" when it comes to brinksmanship....

[R-V]

The bad news: SUPERCONGRESS is gonna hai. The good news: if RegularCongress doesn't like what SUPERCONGRESS comes up with, they'll stop wasting my tax dollars on deadbeat troops like TEC.

In his remarks on Friday, President Obama said he would support a trigger if it was done in "a smart and balanced way." The implication was that it had to include tax increases as well as spending cuts, as a trigger with just spending cuts wouldn't force Republicans to negotiate in good faith. The trigger in this deal does not include tax increases.

What it includes instead are massive cuts to the defense budget. If Congress doesn't pass a second round of deficit reduction, the trigger cuts $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Fully half of that comes from defense spending. And note that I didn't say "security spending." The Pentagon takes the full hit if the trigger goes off.

The other half of the trigger comes from domestic spending. But Social Security, Medicaid and a few other programs for the poor are exempted. So the trigger is effectively treating defense spending like it comprises more than half of all federal spending. If it goes off, the cuts to that sector will be tremendous -- particularly given that they will come on top of the initial round of cuts. Whether you think the trigger will work depends on whether you think the GOP would permit that level of cuts to defense.

If the trigger "works," of course, it's never used. Instead, the bipartisan committee produces $1.5 trillion (or more) in deficit reduction, Congress passes their plan and the president signs it. But why should we believe that will happen? If Republicans and Democrats couldn't agree on major deficit reduction this year, why is it going to be any easier in an election year?

And the National Review...is right?

Finally, I would note that the president called for a "balanced" approach to fiscal adjustment, and this is one. We now have $2.5 trillion in automatic, scheduled spending cuts* over the next 10 years. That comes on top of $2.8 trillion in automatic tax increases that are already scheduled through the year 2022, due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2012. Indeed, Republicans have a good case that the automatic deficit reduction plan is not balanced but a bit tax-heavy.

I brought this up on Twitter today, and I got a lot of harrumphing from Democrats. There's no way President Obama will ever let the Bush tax cuts expire, they say—he'll get rolled again, just like he did in 2010.

To that, I have two responses. First, it's not our fault you nominated this guy. Second, I'm not sure what good a balanced trigger as part of this compromise—one that included automatic tax increases, not just spending cuts—would have done, under this view. President Obama already has an automatic tax trigger that liberals believe he is afraid to use. What good would giving him a second trigger do?

[Quality Start Machine]

The Bush tax cuts get rolled on 1/1/13, after the election. At that point Obama is done being a candidate, win or lose. He can let them expire, although I don't see him letting them all go, just the top brackets.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/to-applause-giffords-returns-to-house-floor-20110801

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., may have captured the change in tone best.

"Who knew that the budget bill would be the second biggest story of the day?" he said.

[PenPho]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/to-applause-giffords-returns-to-house-floor-20110801

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., may have captured the change in tone best.

"Who knew that the budget bill would be the second biggest story of the day?" he said.

Intrepid Reader: Huey

Today, Congress.
Tomorrow, POTUS. 

[Gilgamesh]

This just sounds great: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44011308/

[J. Walter Weatherman]

This just sounds great: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44011308/

Why does Gil hate the First Amendment?

Edit: by all accounts, Gil should be fer it, not agin it...

It's one more example, he said, of how American political campaigns have gone "back to the future" and to the "pre-Watergate days (of 1972) when Richard Nixon was raising unlimited amounts of money without disclosure."

(How is that going "back to the future"?)

[R-V]

This just sounds great: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44011308/

Why does Gil hate the First Amendment?

Edit: by all accounts, Gil should be fer it, not agin it...

It's one more example, he said, of how American political campaigns have gone "back to the future" and to the "pre-Watergate days (of 1972) when Richard Nixon was raising unlimited amounts of money without disclosure."

(How is that going "back to the future"?)

Nixon was a time traveler. Clearly someone that handsome and wise couldn't have been born in the 1900s.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

This just sounds great: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44011308/

Why does Gil hate the First Amendment?

Edit: by all accounts, Gil should be fer it, not agin it...

It's one more example, he said, of how American political campaigns have gone "back to the future" and to the "pre-Watergate days (of 1972) when Richard Nixon was raising unlimited amounts of money without disclosure."

(How is that going "back to the future"?)

Nixon was a time traveler. Clearly someone that handsome and wise couldn't have been born in the 1900s.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

The GOP holds the FAA hostage.

And good for them! As everyone knows, the only thing the "safety regulation" state is good for is holding back the development of the Jetsons shit we so rightly deserve.

(Speaking of which, by the by... Hurdle one. Hurdle two. Who's got $250K sitting idle?)