Deficit Super Committee Keeps Congress in the Dark As Deadline Nears
With less than a month remaining until its deadline to engineer $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, the Deficit Super Committee has worked exclusively over the past month behind closed doors – out of the public’s view to determine whether the panel is making substantial progress.
Today, the committee will hold its first open public hearing in more than a month, as the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Elmendorf, testifies on “Discretionary Outlays: Security and Non-Security.”
The lack of transparency has left many on Capitol Hill scratching their heads and wondering just what progress the committee has made since it last met publicly on Sept. 22. Without a steady flow of information coming from the private meetings, it’s also left some political observers skeptical that the 12-member panel will succeed in reaching its mandate.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, co-chair of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, denied that the committee is struggling to make progress and reasserted his confidence that the tight-lipped bipartisan group will succeed in identifying at least $1.5 trillion in cuts over the next decade by next month’s Nov. 23 deadline.
“I remain encouraged that the members of the Joint Select Committee know how serious the situation is,” Hensarling, R-Texas, said Tuesday. “I believe they are all committed to achieving the goal, and until the stroke of midnight on November 22 we still have plenty of time to do the committee’s work.”
Late Tuesday evening, the committee announced another public hearing, scheduled for Nov. 1. That open meeting will feature testimony from the top architects of two other key deficit reduction plans, Simpson/Bowles and Domenici/Rivlin. The quartet have encouraged the committee to reach for the maximum savings and the committee is thought to be closely examining elements within the plans during private talks.
But over the past two months most of the committee’s work has been conducted behind closed doors, leaving Members of Congress and the press guessing just how productive the panel has been.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, who is not on the committee, told reporters that he feels very strongly that “the most important thing we are doing over the next two months is trying to come up with a successful compromise and agreement between the parties with respect to reducing the deficit.”
“It will be one of the single best things we can do to give confidence to our own people, to give confidence to business and consumers, and to strengthen confidence around in the world in America’s ability to meet the challenges that confront it,” Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters at his pen and pad briefing Tuesday. “I hope the committee…focuses on this issue with a view towards a successful compromise that has everything on the table, discretionary spending, entitlements, defense, non defense, and tax preference items consistent with Bowles-Simpson, Domenici-Rivlin, and the Gang of Six.”
But judging by the mundane progress reports made by members participating in the private sessions and the controversy expected to come as a result of the recommendations, some are skeptical the committee will reach a deal in time for Congressional leaders to build support and pass it into law.
“The 12 are being very circumspect with their colleagues as well as the press…because a big deal is going to be a controversial deal, and there will be things in a big deal that all of its components, everybody will not like something,” Hoyer said. “Nothing’s agreed to until everything’s agreed to, and they are trying to see what can be put on the table realistically to move forward on.”
Some congressional aides, however, suggest that the committee is able to get more work done in private deliberations than through the charade and formality of an open hearing.
Others contend that considering the limited time frame the committee is working under and rules requiring seven days notice prior to a public hearing, “it’s difficult logistically to schedule public hearings.”
“As for their progress, all I can say is members are still meeting,” an aide close to the negotiations said. “That in itself should be seen as a good sign compared to previous attempts.”
As outlined in the Budget Control Act, the committee has until Nov. 23 to pass a proposal with at least $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction for the full Congress to consider. Congress then has until Dec. 23 to enact $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. If they fail to meet the deadline, sequestration cuts totaling $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction would kick in, slashing defense spending and Medicare benefits.
Email
White House Loves Aggressive Journalism ... Abroad
Virginia Ultrasound Bill Hits Nerve
I can save you large portions of money with 2 easy steps. 1) reduce and freeze the pay of the senate and congressment 2) No more free health care for them either. Make them use the same health care providers that are avaible to the public and make them pay at least as much as the average american must pay for it. See billions saved in 2 easy steps.
Posted by: rj | October 26, 2011, 8:11 am 8:11 am
I still say we need a super-duper committee. A plain old super committee won’t work.
Posted by: newcountryman | October 26, 2011, 8:17 am 8:17 am
Whatever they come up with the GOP congress won’t pass it. Sequestration cuts is almost certain to take place and you can expect even more gridlock in Washington.
Posted by: Indymind | October 26, 2011, 8:28 am 8:28 am
Whatever ANYONE except Obama comes up with Harry Reid won’t even consider it.
Posted by: newcountryman | October 26, 2011, 8:42 am 8:42 am
You’re the alleged news agency, ABC . . . are they keeping congress in the dark? Enough rhetorical questions . . . how about a little “news”.
Posted by: rplat | October 26, 2011, 8:46 am 8:46 am
They are probably trying to figure oot how they are going to pull a fast one over the Ameerican people again. Lets face it, these lawyers are not going to represent anyone but those who sponsor them….after all mostly its about their egos and nothing else!
I would like to see what Ron Paul will have to say about all of it. If there is anything valuable about Paul is that he wants to cut along all lines….and we should….but if you people knew just where most of your money goes, I promise you, you would violently rebel…
Those who dont pay fed taxes would also rebel, since they are losing services so that money can flow elsewhere to causes hardly American….its that bad! The Dems and Gop always make grandiose claims about defending the armed forces, or defending social programs, but both are so full of baloney that if they ever got close to my dog, it would be a mess…..the programs these people espouse and support in reality have almost nothing to do with American pure interests! AND I MEAN NOTHING!
Posted by: Mugabonda ^lopile | October 26, 2011, 9:25 am 9:25 am
Whatever they come up with in the (supposedly) corruption free zone of sequestration will never stand up to the onslaught of the moneyed paymasters who will buy off Congress so nothing helpful ever happens. So what if that means disaster for the middle class? That is not the issue for those who can already afford to buy our government. For our elected representatives, it’s the reelection campaign fund that is job one above all else, so they look to their paymasters, not to solutions. Solutions don’t pay.
Posted by: sameagain | October 26, 2011, 9:28 am 9:28 am
Still hoping for change I guess.
Posted by: newcountryman | October 26, 2011, 9:48 am 9:48 am
I’m glad they are keeping everyone else in Congress out of it. EVERY partisan on both sides would have been attacking cuts just being CONSIDERED…and they would’ve whipped their radical bases into a frenzy to keep THEIR pet projects.
Nothing would get done if the rest of Congress has a hand in it.
BTW: Reducing Congress’ pay/benefits will NOT save ANY significant amount of the budget…but it sure is a good way to tell the readers who know NOTHING about the budget.
Posted by: Tim Sedano | October 26, 2011, 11:12 am 11:12 am
….for starters, this country NEEDS a flat tax of some sort, for individuals AND corporations, if our taxes go up a point for individuals AND is applied to the debt, so be it!…..my PET peeve is natl endowment to the arts, NPR, PBS, etc….followed by subsidies to ag, oil, SOLAR, sugar, wool, et.al., ad nauseum….
Posted by: Shel robb | October 26, 2011, 4:31 pm 4:31 pm
nothing new here, everybody new that nothing would be done by this committee.
we need somebody other than the do nothing congress members to get anything done right
Posted by: bipar08 | October 26, 2011, 9:40 pm 9:40 pm
$1.5 trillion in 10 years is an absolute joke! That means cutting our yearly spending of about $150 billion. Chump change next to our explosive $1.4 trillion deficit in 2011. Time for us to wake up and face the music…
Posted by: RC | October 27, 2011, 4:45 am 4:45 am
435 Congressman is way too many. Nothing positive can get done with that unweildy number. We need to downsize the number to 365. I realize it will dilute our representation, but it will also have the affect of making it more difficult for extremists on both sides from getting elected and it will promote a more centrist legislature.As far as reducing their compensaton while they are in office. Here is why I am against it. Life has taught me time and time again that you basically get what you pay for. If you keep their salaries to low, the process will discourage canidates who have modest wealth and income streams. I believe the better solution is to pay them more but place greater restrictions on their ability to raise money and receive campaign contributions. The problem with our system lies not in paying millions of dollars on Congressional salaries, but in Congressmen and women spending trillions of dollars on God knows what.Pass it On.
Posted by: Rupert Marshall | November 1, 2011, 10:45 am 10:45 am