Not a member? Sign up now
John McCain shoots down Super Congress provisions
By Alex HeiglOctober 14th, 2011, 1:45 pmComments (28)
Remember all that flack about the "Super Congress" or "supercommittee" or "Totally Bitchin' Group of Job-Makin' Bros" from a while back? It's the bipartisan committee that's supposed to find trillions in debt reduction. If they don't, though, or their recommendations don't make it through Congress, there's this "trigger" provision that'll slash defense spending, among other things?
Well, Skeletor John McCain recently spilled the beans about that whole trigger provision.
"If there's a failure on the part of the supercommittee, we will be among the first on the floor to nullify that provision [the trigger]. Congress is not bound by this. If something is passed, we can reverse it."
Um. Okay. But then what's the point of having it loom over the supercommittee in the first place?
"I didn't agree with the trigger being created to start with. So I have no ownership of that."
Guh. So we've been fed an image of this great bi-partisan kickass group working feverishly with this looming legislative Sword of Damocles hanging over their head, and now we find that Congress' resident Cranky Old Man is just going to tell that bill to get the hell of his lawn, damnit? And probably be joined by all his stonewalling pals?
Seriously, if we're at the point where our elected officials are explicitly broadcasting their intent to nullify the efforts of their peers months in advance, then what's the point of having them at all? Maybe a big roulette wheel of legislative actions would work just as well.
John McCain: You gave us Sarah Palin. That is a debt that can never, ever be repaid, so just retire and sit on your front porch with a shotgun. Going for Strom Thurmond's "Oldest, Crankiest and Generally Most Useless Member of Congress" award is not a valid use of your time or my money.
Tags
Congress
Commentarium (28 Comments)
I have no doubt that the Senate would act to nullify the provisions of the earlier agreement. The House is another matter and without both acting, the provisions stay in effect.
Is there any better argument for a balanced budget amendment than this?
Your first paragraph is spot on. The second is dead wrong. It's basic macro-economics that when there is a recession in the private sector, the public sector should engage in deficit spending to prime the pump. A dollar spent on things like constructing or repairing infrastructure boosts the economy by a factor of about $1.80 (this is because employed people buy more things, resulting in greater demand and more tax revenues). I don't think "deficits are irrelevant," as Dick Cheney famously said, but remedy for that is to increase taxes during the boom periods. The disasterous transfer of wealth to the already wealthy by the Bush Administration and left unchecked by the Obama Administration is a large part of the reason the economy is in the toilet now.
As usual Prof, well said. In even simpler language: when you're going up hill, step on the gas, when going down hill step on the brakes. Bush stepped on the gas going down hill and now everybody wants to step on the brakes going up. In the first case you CRASH, in the second you stop abruptly.
I don't mind sending my deficits to your children, robert, but I object to you sending your deficits to my kids. Unfortunately, your understanding of macroeconomics is flawed. If your simple analysis was correct, we should confiscate 100% of everyone's income and have the government spend it. Clearly we're past the point where increased government spending is productive. We likely entered a zone of increasingly diminishing returns about $750/yr ago.
And sorry, Gazbo, but the analogy doesn't make a bad idea any more attractive.
@Publius: http://goo.gl/Kq80D
Gee, John McCain use to be the "go to Republican" for the libs whenever they wanted to bash Bush or any other Republican! Of course once he became a candidate for President he ceased being a "good Republican" and had to be destroyed. Anyway Alex seems to have gotten the memo late.
Geez, a "Storm Thrumond" reference, was Alex watching an old Comic Relief tape from the 80's!!!
Glad to see libs are OK with bashing Veterans again, was getting worried about that!
You seem to be too dumb to remember that John McCain essentially reversed every single position he ever had once he ran for president. Apparently, he felt compelled to court the morons who loved Dubya and who wanted to hump Palin.
At least that's what John Stewart's writers told us what to think when he told us to hate McCain now.
See what I did there? Rather than face the facts I tried to create a flimsy diversion. Classic republitroll tactic!
The fact that Mr McCain is a Veteran, however distinguished, has nothing to do with it. This is bad policy, regardless of what he used to do for a living.
I don't want either my kids or your kids to pay for it; I want the Koch Brothers' kids to pay for it, the Gateses' kids, the Walton kids . . . . You get my point. The people who most benefitted from the Bush Boom need to pay for the Bush Bust. Your 100% tax rate argument is a straw man; no one is advocating that. I'd like to see the Bush cuts of 3% for families making over $250k repealed (and another 5% on incomes over a million enacted). So if your family is making under $250k, I'm not touching your taxes. If you're lucky enough that you're making $300k, another $1,500 a year in marginal taxes (the 3% on the $50k over the $250k cut-off) isn't going to affect you or make you not create jobs (assuming you were doing so in the first place). Wealthy individuals and financial institutions are sitting on buttloads of cash that should be spent on job creation. If the private sector won't do it, the government should tax and spend.
I don't apply to Publius or any of the other paid conservatrolls on Nerve. Although I greatly appreciate your insightful comments, which are gems within this polluted forum.
Well, I don't get your point. Actually, I get your point but it's wrong. We're past the point where increased government spending has a beneficial impact on the econonmy. The critical mistake of Keynesian thinking is that government and private "spending" are interchangeable; they are not. Solyndra being the latest example. Combine that with billions of "infrastructure" spending such as high speed rail and future budgets will be further stressed with the necessity of keeping such red herrings in operation.
Unfortunately, the tax plan you describe will do very little to offset out of control spending and get us no where near a balanced budget.
Ah, but your examples don't contradict the premise, only two, specific applications. Sure, Solyndra was a bad bet, but investment in alternative energy sources surely isn't. I also agree that high-speed rail mostly doesn't make financial sense in this country; I wouldn't have voted for that, either. I'm talking about repairing roads and bridges (have you seen what the bridge collapses do to economies?), and schools, and nuclear power facilities. I have no doubt that there is pork and waste in some of the infrastructure spending, but that's the exception, not the rule.
Thanks guys for not wanting me to pay any taxes on the billions I made using slave labor in China!!! I love you too!!!
If investment in alternative energy was a good "bet" then you can imagine that private investment would be providing the capital, as it does in virtually every other effort. It's not that different than high-speed rail which, as you seem to suggest, is not a good investment in a very large country with decentralized population centers.
The first trillion dollar+ effort was largely aimed at infrastructure. What happened to that investment? Since it was largely insufficient to spur the economy, it's unlikely this one will be able to either. It is quite likely that the strain resulting from deficit spending will sufficiently constrain private capital markets to largely undue any illusory stimulative effect that Obama proposes with his latest half-billion dollar effort.
I suspect the discussion is largely academic; the American Jobs Act will not see the light of day. Senate Democrats don't even support it.
I am heartened to see you support an increase in nuclear power - there's at least one thing we agree on.
I fear you may be right about the jobs bill. The problem with the first stimulus is that it wasn't big enough, and it's also pretty clear that it kept things from being even worse, but you knew that I would say that.
My point about nuclear power was to improve safety in existing plants -- the Virginia-centered earthquake came real close to creating a disaster at the nearby plant. As for new nuclear power plants, honestly I'm on the fence. I'm not opposed to it in principle, but I suspect that to do it safely enough would render it not financially viable; in other words, you'd have to risk a catastrophe (even if it's a remote one) to make it cost effective.
BTW, I appreciate the honest debate and exposition of differences. I think it's a worthwhile reminder that people of good conscience and principle can disagree.
@profrobert: I might have been responsible for the Virginia quakes. Look up Arkansas and fracking sometime if you're not convinced. Nuclear (if done safely) is only useful as a transition towards solar, wind, hydro, tide and geothermal energy. Then there's that pesky elephant in the room: Overpopulation.
Yeah, the jobs bill is dead (thankfully) but I disagree on your analysis of the first stimulus. The first stimulus was too large and furthermore used improperly. As it is, we barely weathered the assault on the dollar (although in fairness, QE-x was also responsible) with only the Euro Zone crisis providing us cover. Had the first stimulus been, say, twice the size, we'd likely be looking at huge inflation and/or a collapse of the dollar as the international currency.
Increase the safety at existing nuclear power plants? Very difficult given the nature of (and difficulty) accessing the containment vessel. Nuclear power is essential to this country, if for no other reason to reduce the use of petroleum. Our children will likely drive vehicles powered by natural gas and live in a nuclear-powered economy.
I, too, enjoy the debate.
Hey Steve, don't forget me, its good to know that a convicted insider trader is still beloved by the tax the rich crowd!!! Oh profrobert, your check is in the mail!
It helps to use spell check, conservatroll.
My fellow plutocrat George is too senile to use a spell checker. Ok, I have to get back to selling your children "Sugar Water" (Coca-Cola) to make more money. Its my holding company's biggest stock!
Warren Buffett is spelled with tt, conservatroll. The true Plutocrats are the ones you work for...Koch Bros!
I assume that's pronounced Cock Bros.?
Only when you sleep.
How well does George Soros pay you liberal troll?
He pays us enough to use spell check.
I remember when Nerve used this space for pictorials of the Suicide Girls instead of politics. Good times...