Oct 13, 2011 1:55pm

Where To Find $1.5 Trillion: ‘Super Committee’ Works on Deal

As the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as the Super Committee, works up against its Nov. 23 deadline to identify at least $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade through spending cuts and/or revenue increases, time is running short to meet its mandate.

The 12-member committee – split evenly between Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate – has met regularly since early September, and oftentimes twice daily since the beginning of this month in private sessions.

But as members of the committee remain tight-lipped about the ongoing deliberations, it’s unclear how much headway the committee is actually making just six weeks before time runs out and the Capitol turns into a proverbial pumpkin.

Tomorrow, Oct. 14, is the deadline for any standing committees to submit their own recommendations to the super committee.

Today, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi released recommendations for revenue increases and savings from 16 Democratic ranking committee members, and she wrote a letter to the co-chairs of the Super Committee – Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Jeb Hensarling – urging them to strike a balanced approach to meet the committee’s objective.

“The House Democratic Caucus is firmly committed to a deficit reduction plan that is big, bold, and balanced,” Pelosi, D-Calif., wrote today. “Such a balanced approach presents the best chance for bipartisan support within the Congress.  The American people overwhelmingly agree that significant revenues must be included in any plan and support a balanced approach.”

House Speaker John Boehner has urged the super committee to go for as big a deal as possible, but Republicans have strictly resisted any proposals that amount to a tax increase.

“The so-called Super Committee has a big job to do,” Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters today. “They know it, we know it, and no one expected this would occur without some difficulty, but the conversations continue, and I expect they will continue, because I believe that an outcome and a result is essential to reduce the debt burden on the American people and to show the markets that we’re serious about dealing with our own problems.”

If the Congress passes a balanced budget amendment before the end of the year, an unlikely feat particularly in the Senate, then the total of deficit reduction required would drop to $1.2 trillion over 10 years.

“There’s a lot of discussion about – on the House side – about the balanced budget amendment, the need to have a real enforcement mechanism on government spending,” Boehner said today. “You know, 48 states have such an amendment as part of their constitution and many of us feel that the ultimate enforcement mechanism on government is to have a balanced budget requirement. As outlined in the Deficit Reduction Act [the Budget Control Act], there will be a vote in the House and Senate after Oct. 1, but before the end of the year on a balanced budget amendment and I would hope that it would pass.”

Boehner would not specify how soon the House of Representatives could vote on the measure.

The Super Committee is expected to work right down to the Nov. 23 deadline, although the Congressional Budget Office would need to score the proposal before the committee votes on it so the panel’s recommendations could be released a few days ahead of the deadline.

The deadline for Congress to enact either the committee’s proposal or an amended version of its own choosing is December 23.

The second phase of the debt limit increase is contingent on the success of the deficit reduction committee. If Congress fails to meet the bar for deficit reduction, then the Office of Management and Budget is required to cut, by means of a sequester, $1.2 trillion from the budget during the years 2013-2021. The sequestration is designed to deter Congress from failing to act and the cuts would be split evenly between the non-exempt portions of defense spending and non-defense spending, like Medicare, providing both political parties with a strong incentive for action.

SHOWS:

User Comments

This story just reports tht there is nothing to report. The current continuing resolution expired 18 Nov, before the “super committee” report is due. There is a strong possibility of brinkmanship and possibly eve a government shutdown.

Posted by: Greggw | October 13, 2011, 3:50 pm 3:50 pm

Do the republicans actually believe that if defense cuts are triggered, millions of workers in the defense industry won’t lose their jobs? The tea party republicans refused to go along with the Obama-Boehner compromise that could have reduced the deficit by 4 trillion dollars and passed this idiotic super committee idea.

They live in a fantasy world where there is no cause and effect. Their world consists of people who believe Americans aren’t rich because we’re all lazy and unmotivated. Americans aren’t stupid; the republicans will find this out on Nov 11, 2012.

Posted by: tmferretti | October 13, 2011, 4:07 pm 4:07 pm

CEASE CORN SUBSIDIES. BETTER HEALTH, SAVE MONEY…NO BRAINER!!!

Posted by: suzieq | October 13, 2011, 5:57 pm 5:57 pm

I hate to say it “Forrest Gump” Republicans, but it’s been 30 years of Republican policies of “Tax Cuts” without simultaneous leadership emphasis on “spending cuts” that have put us in this mess. If you disagree, then why is it that the two largest incremental jumps in “per president” debt increases in the past 30 years BOTH occurred under Republican administrations?

We went from “billion dollar debt increases per president” to “~2 Trillion dollar debt increases per president” under a Republican named Ronald Reagan… and then we went from that Reagan standard to a new standard of “~5 Trillion dollar debt increases” under another Republican named G.W. Bush.

Geeze folks, do you think these huge incremental leaps in debt accumulation may have something to do with tax cuts (without cuts in spending)? … it’s not rocket science… LOL!

Nixon / Ford Debt Increase = $292 Billion
Carter Debt Increase = $280 Billion

REAGAN “TAX CUTS” (without cuts in spending) RESULTS:
Reagan Debt Increase (and Reagan had a Republican Senate for 6 of his 8 years) = $1.7 Trillion
(the “Reagan Standard” is established)

George H.W. Bush (Bush # 1) Debt Increase = $1.4 Trillion
Clinton Debt Increase = $1.6 Trillion

BUSH TAX CUTS (without cuts in spending) RESULTS:
George W. Bush (Bush # 2) Debt Increase = $4.9 Trillion
(the “Reagan Standard” has now been replaced with the “Bush Standard”)

Obama is correct… and at least he has the leadership courage to address tax increases (unlike Reagan and Bush 2, who didn’t have the courage to address spending cuts)… to get rid of our deficit, we need A COMBINATION OF SPENDING CUTS COMBINED WITH TAX INCREASES.

Posted by: Forrest Gump is a Republican | October 13, 2011, 9:02 pm 9:02 pm

The entire approach is still a big problem!!! —– We agree to raise the debt ceiling TODAY… and plan to pay it back with cuts over the next TEN YEARS!!! —– When will DC ever wise up… we need REAL CUTS now!!! —– I hope after the next election we will be able to see REAL fiscal responsibility… because we certainly don’t have it now!!

Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | October 13, 2011, 9:04 pm 9:04 pm

Forrest Gump 9:02 pm (“Stupid is as stupid does!”) —— You should know that ALL spending originates in Congress!!! —— So a better way to look at spending is by looking at WHO CONTROLLED CONGRESS!!! ——- Since 12/31/1980, the national debt has increased from $930Billion to $14.8Trillion. — During that time, when the control of the House and Senate was SPLIT, the debt increased $1.7 Trillion — when congress was ALL GOP, the debt increased by $3.3 Trillion — and when congress was ALL DEMOCRAT, the debt went up $8.9 Trillion! —– Facts don’t lie!! —– So you can see that Obama is just another TAX AND SPEND DEMOCRAT!!!

Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | October 13, 2011, 9:31 pm 9:31 pm

DUH!!!!!!! DUH!!! DUH!! What happens to the minds of politicians when they get elected?? Is there some kind of initiation ceremony that gives them “DUMB” brains?? A drink of some kind?
poisoned cookies? Graft??

A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF AMERICA—-

LACK OF SUCH IS WHY WE NOW HAVE SUCH TROUBLE—
How is it that this concept is in question??

Posted by: James Diffley | October 15, 2011, 5:36 pm 5:36 pm

A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF AMERICA—-LACK OF SUCH IS WHY WE NOW HAVE SUCH TROUBLE—How is it that this concept is in question??
Posted by: James Diffley | October 15, 2011, 5:36 pm.

Because it is a really, really, really, really, really, really STUPID IDEA! In GREAT times, it’s barely noticeable, and can be tolerated. In BAD times, like NOW, it is a horribly BAD idea. And FYI, it could easily result in HIGHER TAXES. Because there is nothing there that says the budget MUST be balanced ONLY with spending cuts. It can ALSO be balanced with REVENUE INCREASES. Like MORE TAXES. And a balanced budget amendment does NOTHING to help high unemployment. That’s why it has never been seriously considered by intelligent people as a viable option…………

Posted by: Searambler | October 17, 2011, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.