• "Super Congress" - Debt Ceiling Negotiators Aim To Create New Legislative Body of Government
    100 replies, posted
[quote][img]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/314080/thumbs/r-SUPER-CONGRESS-large570.jpg[/img] WASHINGTON -- Debt ceiling negotiators think they've hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public's unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new 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. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has made a Super Congress a central part of his last-minute proposal, multiple news reports and people familiar with his plan say. A picture of Boehner's proposal began to come into focus Saturday evening: The debt ceiling would be raised for a short-term period and coupled with an equal dollar figure of cuts, somewhere in the vicinity of a trillion dollars over ten years. A second increase in the debt ceiling would be tied to the creation of a Super Congress that would be required to find a minimum amount of spending cuts. Because the elevated panel would need at least one Democratic vote, its plan would presumably include at least some revenue, though if it's anything like the deals on the table today, it would likely be heavily slanted toward spending cuts. Or, as Obama said of the deal he was offering Republicans before Boehner walked out, "If it was unbalanced, it was unbalanced in the direction of not enough revenue." Republicans, however, are looking to force a second debt ceiling fight as part of the package, despite the Democratic rejection of the plan. Under the Republican plan, lawmakers would need to weigh in on the debt ceiling during the heat of the presidential election, a proposal Democrats reject as risky to the nation's credit rating. "We expressed openness to two stages of cuts, but not to a short-term debt limit extension," a Democratic aide close to the negotiations said. "Republicans only want the debt ceiling extended as far as the cuts in each tranch. That means we’ll be right back where we are today a few months down the road. We are not a Banana Republic. You don’t run America like that." The aide said that Democrats are open to a series of cuts as well as a Super Congress, but only if the debt ceiling is raised sufficiently so that it pushes past the election. "Our proposal tonight was, do two tranches of cuts, but raise the debt ceiling through 2012 right now, though the McConnell process would be one way," said the aide, leaving open the possibility that Boehner could craft a new process and distinguish it from McConnell's, which the Tea Party despises as a dereliction of duty. "Do that now with a package of cuts, and have the joint committee" -- the Super Congress -- "report out a package that would be the second tranch. Republicans rejected that, and continued to push a short-term despite the fact that Reid, Pelosi and Obama all could not have been clearer that they will not support a short-term increase. A short term risks some of the same consequences as outright failure to raise the ceiling -- downgraded credit rating, stocks plunge, interest rates spike, etc. It is unclear why Republicans have made this their sticking point." Boehner spokesman Michael Steel argued that the inability to come to a larger deal so far left a short-term extension as an "inevitable" option. "For months, we have laid out our principles to pass a bill that fulfills the president's request to increase the debt limit beyond the next election. We have passed a debt limit increase with the reforms the American people demand, the 'Cut, Cap, and Balance' bill. The Democrats who run Washington have refused to offer a plan," he said in a statement. "Now, as a result, a two-step process is inevitable. Like the president and the entire bipartisan, bicameral congressional leadership, we continue to believe that defaulting on the full faith and credit of the United States is not an option." Obama has shown himself to be a fan of the commission approach to cutting social programs and entitlements. Shortly after taking office, Obama held a major conference on deficit reduction and subsequently created, by executive order, The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. The White House made two telling appointments to chair the commission: The first was former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), a well-known critic of Social Security who earned notoriety by suggesting, among other things, that the American government had become "a milk cow with 310 million tits!" Yet Obama's Democratic appointment was even more indicative of whose interests took priority: former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles. Bowles is a member of Morgan Stanley's board of directors; an adviser to Carousel Capital, a private equity firm; and a director of Cousins Properties Incorporated, a firm with significant investments in commercial and mixed-use real estate. Simpson and Bowles, perhaps unsurprisingly, produced a report recommending corporate and high-end tax cuts, along with cuts to Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits and a host of other social programs. The commission needed 14 of 18 members to approve the plan in order for it to advance to Congress for a vote. The commission fell short, but did win a majority. Proponents of slashing spending won't make the same mistake with a new Super Congress. Only a simple majority will be necessary.[/quote] [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html[/url] There isn't really any single important part to this story; the basis and concepts behind the idea are explained in full. A similar system is already used for nearly all bills that go through Congress. It's usually at the end though where the appointed conference committee debating the bill discusses how to hash out the difference between the House and Senate versions. Basically it's just a reversed version. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_conference_committee[/url] Seems unnecessary, though, with that in mind.
That's just blatantly unconstitutional.
Lets also put some corporate sponsors on it.
This is a terrible idea, but no doubt the media idiots will say it would be good.
...What? Seriously, what the hell is this insanity? They want to make it so that nobody but 12 easily-bought members of Congress have the right to amend bills anymore? And the entire point of this is to make it easier for Republicans to slash social programs? Seems like Congress, and the GOP in particular, never stop finding new ways to completely horrify people.
Oh god why did I rate winner, I didn't read it. This is terrible.
NO. [IMG]http://images.wikia.com/deusex/en/images/9/96/Majestic12Logo.png[/IMG] It is so fucking obvious. [b]12 PEOPLE[/b]. I will let you figure the rest out.
[QUOTE=The golden;31328371]If the GOP get their hands on something like this the country is fucked.[/QUOTE] if anybody gets their hands on this the world is fucked
[QUOTE=certified;31328303]NO. [IMG]http://images.wikia.com/deusex/en/images/9/96/Majestic12Logo.png[/IMG] It is so fucking obvious. [b]12 PEOPLE[/b]. I will let you figure the rest out.[/QUOTE] Some would consider it rather [b]majetsic[/b], but I think it's just another step towards a very bad thing.
[QUOTE=MrBob1337;31328293]Oh god why did I rate winner, I didn't read it. This is terrible.[/QUOTE] Refresh and Re-rate.
I truly hope for America that this will not happen, if it will... Then yeah, I don't even have to say how corruptible and ab-usable this system is.
So, if this goes through congress will not only have fuck-ups, but it'll also have super fuck-ups!
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;31328269]They want to make it so that nobody but 12 easily-bought members of Congress have the right to amend bills anymore?[/QUOTE] Fucking read the goddamn article. It says that bills that originate from the Super Congress can't be amended by regular Congress and can only be voted up or down by them. Congress can still create and amend their own bills. The point of this is so that regular Congressmen can't ruin a good bill by amending it and filling it full of shit so that it never gets passed. Not that I agree with it, but that is what it is.
'We can't balace our budget, so let's create a single super congress controlled by the few that could pass any legislation it damn well pleases with no accountability, therefor making your vote useless.' Yup, makes sense. I don't think they understand that if they can't screw with things through the normal process, that means it SHOULDN'T PASS. Now we have idiots like Boehner and the rest of the current lead republicans making the republican party look bad, and now the whole country is going to look bad as we default. It isn't hard to come up with a solution through the proper channels if it really is a genuine solution that does less harm than good and actually benefits everyone. Hopefully the supreme court CAN strike whatever they decide down. And hopefully they will. Because this is bullshit. [QUOTE]Fucking read the goddamn article. It says that bills that originate from the Super Congress can't be amended by regular Congress and can only be voted up or down by them. Congress can still create and amend their own bills. The point of this is so that regular Congressmen can't ruin a good bill by amending it and filling it full of shit so that it never gets passed. Not that I agree with it, but that is what it is. [/QUOTE] It works the other way too. If those bills have something everyone wants, with a little extra benefit for some random group of people that have the super congress in their pocket, people will vote yes. They could write in "Give everyone fair and equal rights regardless of their skin color" and then add in "plus give each of us $1,000,000" and of course the rest of congress will vote yes. Bad example, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at. At that point, no one can remove the corrupt peice of the legislation.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;31328564]'We can't balace our budget, so let's create a single super congress controlled by the few that could pass any legislation it damn well pleases with no accountability, therefor making your vote useless.' Yup, makes sense. I don't think they understand that if they can't screw with things through the normal process, that means it SHOULDN'T PASS. Now we have idiots like Boehner and the rest of the current lead republicans making the republican party look bad, and now the whole country is going to look bad as we default. It isn't hard to come up with a solution through the proper channels if it really is a genuine solution that does less harm than good and actually benefits everyone. But let's give all the money to the corporations and rich. Can't forget them. Hopefully the supreme court CAN strike whatever they decide down. And hopefully they will. Because this is bullshit.[/QUOTE] Holy fucking shit, they [B]cannot[/B] pass any legislation they damn well please. Congress still votes on bills that originate from the Super Congress. And the bills still act as regular bills once passed, so the Supreme Court can strike them down. You idiots really need to read before you fucking sperg all over the thread.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;31328594]Holy fucking shit, they [B]cannot[/B] pass any legislation they damn well please. Congress still votes on bills that originate from the Super Congress. And the bills still act as regular bills once passed, so the Supreme Court can strike them down. You idiots really need to read before you fucking sperg all over the thread.[/QUOTE] Read my reply before you 'sperg' all over my post. I'm trying to say this doesn't solve anything, because it can still go both ways. I should mention, I hope they can strike down the creation of this body. I know they can strike down any bill that it passes just like any other bill.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;31328594]Holy fucking shit, they [B]cannot[/B] pass any legislation they damn well please. Congress still votes on bills that originate from the Super Congress. And the bills still act as regular bills once passed, so the Supreme Court can strike them down. You idiots really need to read before you fucking sperg all over the thread.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't the fact that: 1) It's not in any part of the constitution. 2) They have powers that (may) lie above the constitution. Imply that even the Supreme court wouldn't be able to tell them what to do? I'm asking, not trying to say that it's true.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;31328269]...What? Seriously, what the hell is this insanity? They want to make it so that nobody but 12 easily-bought members of Congress have the right to amend bills anymore? And the entire point of this is to make it easier for Republicans to slash social programs? Seems like Congress, and the GOP in particular, never stop finding new ways to completely horrify people.[/QUOTE] the point is to speed this shit up because the constant bickering of the congress and senate has done nothing but caused constant stagnation for the past decade [editline]25th July 2011[/editline] i'll form an opinion on this whole thing when i get information from something other than huffpo
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;31328564]It works the other way too. If those bills have something everyone wants, with a little extra benefit for some random group of people that have the super congress in their pocket, people will vote yes. They could write in "Give everyone fair and equal rights regardless of their skin color" and then add in "plus give each of us $1,000,000" and of course the rest of congress will vote yes. Bad example, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at. At that point, no one can remove the corrupt peice of legislation.[/QUOTE] You're right, it's a terrible example. Because either [A] the Super Congress won't add any pork to the bill because they know it's retarded or because they know it won't get passed, or [B] the Super Congress will only add pork if it's equal enough that it will still get passed. You don't understand that lawmakers [B]already[/B] add shitloads of pork to legislation without the help of a Super Congress, and all it does is ruin good bills. [editline]25th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Miskav;31328643]Wouldn't the fact that: 1) It's not in any part of the constitution. 2) They have powers that (may) lie above the constitution. Imply that even the Supreme court wouldn't be able to tell them what to do? I'm asking, not trying to say that it's true.[/QUOTE] No, it wouldn't. If they created this Super Congress, it would have to be compatible with the Constitution. If it wasn't, the Supreme Court could abolish it.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;31328665]You're right, it's a terrible example. Because either [A] the Super Congress won't add any pork to the bill because they know it's retarded or because they know it won't get passed, or [B] the Super Congress will only add pork if it's equal enough that it will still get passed. You don't understand that lawmakers [B]already[/B] add shitloads of pork to legislation without the help of a Super Congress, and all it does is ruin good bills. [editline]25th July 2011[/editline] No, it wouldn't. If they created this Super Congress, it would have to be compatible with the Constitution. If it wasn't, the Supreme Court could abolish it.[/QUOTE] Are you certain about that? Are you absolutely sure these 12 members of congress aren't going to just add the pork in themselves? Because I bet you at some point, the members of this congress have done just that. This just lets them add their pork and no one elses. It doesn't fix the problem and it doesn't belong in our Congress. I know I keep adding more and more to my posts and it's bad but I have one last thing to say. When I vote for a representative, they should be able to have more than a yes or no when it comes to any and all bills involving me and where I live, because they are MY represenative. This is these 12 members saying 'take what we give you, or get nothing'. That's not right.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;31328715]Are you certain about that? Are you absolutely sure this 12 members of congress aren't going to just add the pork in themselves? Because I bet you at some point, the members of this congress have done just that. This just lets them add their pork and no one elses. It doesn't fix the problem and it doesn't belong in our Congress.[/QUOTE] If they decided to add tons of pork just for themselves, the bill would never be passed because [B]it still has to be voted on by the other 523 members of Congress.[/B] Any bill that the Super Congress creates has to be voted on by regular Congress. And regular Congress isn't going to pass a bill that gives everyone in the Super Congress huge paydays.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;31328752]If they decided to add tons of pork just for themselves, the bill would never be passed because [B]it still has to be voted on by the other 523 members of Congress.[/B] Any bill that the Super Congress creates has to be voted on by regular Congress. And regular Congress isn't going to pass a bill that gives everyone in the Super Congress huge paydays.[/QUOTE] It doesn't have to be for themselves, sorry if you got that from my example. It can be for any organisation that they have any dealings with. [QUOTE]it still has to be voted on by the other 523 members of Congress[/QUOTE] But they can't edit the bill, good Senators can't remove the pork, and if it's important like this budget crisis, no matter how much pork it has it will pass. Assigning a hierarchy, especially a really powerful one like a 'super congress', is a terrible and unfair idea. The reason they made two houses of congress is to balance the representation in the states. With this congress, that doesn't even matter because now, one representative in the Senate from Kentucky is more powerful than another from say Virginia. Throws off the balance. This is a bad idea.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;31328564] But let's give all the money to the corporations and rich. Can't forget them. [/QUOTE] Seriously, I get that not every politician is pure and some are in the pockets of lobbyists and politicians, but I'm tired of this cynical "Entire goverment might as well be in their pocket MAN" bullshit. The U.S., according to Transparency International, is in clean to very clean bracket, the same place as most of Europe. "The corrupt politician" is a great stereotype for fiction, but lets keep it out of actual political debate please?
Jesus. I could see this being abused.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;31328888]It doesn't have to be for themselves, sorry if you got that from my example. It can be for any organisation that they have any dealings with. But they can't edit the bill, good Senators can't remove the pork, and it it's important like this budget crisis, no matter how much pork it has it will pass. Assigning a hierarchy, especially a really powerful one like a 'super congress', is a terrible and unfair idea. The reason they made two houses of congress is to balance the representation in the states. With this congress, that doesn't even matter because now, one representative in the Senate from Kentucky is more powerful than another from say Virginia. Throws off the balance. This is a bad idea.[/QUOTE] Wrongggggggg. The reason they aren't passing important, good bills is because idiot Congressmen keep adding pork to them. There is still going to be equal representation because everyone will still get to vote yes or no on the fucking bills. You act as though Super Congress is going to load their bill with pork and then pass it themselves and that isn't the case. Congress will not pass a bill from Super Congress if it is loaded with pork for certain organizations.
[QUOTE=Spooter;31328901]Seriously, I get that not every politician is pure and some are in the pockets of lobbyists and politicians, but I'm tired of this cynical "Entire goverment might as well be in their pocket MAN" bullshit. The U.S., according to Transparency International, is in clean to very clean bracket, the same place as most of Europe. "The corrupt politician" is a great stereotype for fiction, but lets keep it out of actual political debate please?[/QUOTE] Removed, but I'd like to add that wasn't my entire argument. My problem with this has been stated two posts up. [QUOTE=lil_n00blett;31328952]Wrongggggggg. The reason they aren't passing important, good bills is because idiot Congressmen keep adding pork to them. There is still going to be equal representation because everyone will still get to vote yes or no on the fucking bills. You act as though Super Congress is going to load their bill with pork and then pass it themselves and that isn't the case. Congress will not pass a bill from Super Congress if it is loaded with pork for certain organizations.[/QUOTE] This isn't going to fix it. This could make it worse. The 'idiot congressmen' can easily be in this group. ANd one group being able to write and vote while the other can only vote isn't equal.
There is an argument here for whether you think this is a good idea or not, but first you need to understand exactly what powers the Super Congress will have and how it will work into the system.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;31328952]Wrongggggggg. The reason they aren't passing important, good bills is because idiot Congressmen keep adding [B]pork[/B] to them. There is still going to be equal representation because everyone will still get to vote yes or no on the fucking bills. You act as though Super Congress is going to load their bill with [B]pork[/B] and then pass it themselves and that isn't the case. Congress will not pass a bill from Super Congress if it is loaded with [B]pork[/B] for certain organizations.[/QUOTE] Well now I'm just hungry. Where's the pork?
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;31328970]This isn't going to fix it. This could make it worse. The 'idiot congressmen' can easily be in this group. ANd one group being able to write and vote while the other can only vote isn't equal.[/QUOTE] You also apparently don't understand that the members of this group are going to be chosen, which means they're going to choose people who have proven themselves and not idiots. And there really aren't many "idiot congressmen," I just say that because down on the floor of Congress, plenty of fine congressmen do things like adding pork to bills when in a small committee they wouldn't do anything of the sort.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;31328970]Removed, but I'd like to add that wasn't my entire argument. My problem with this has been stated two posts up.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you think the Super Congress is going to be too easily corruptible and will have too much power. I disagree, I think that congress would have plenty of power to keep the Super Congress in check. Though to me the whole idea sounds fucking stupid, because the legislative branch as is has the ability to solve this debt ceiling problem. This is a stupid cop-out that excuses the idiotic posturing and complete absence of cooperation in Congress. It's not a flaw in the system, it's a flaw in the jackasses who would rather put their party before the country. Be they Republican or Democrat.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.