Super Committee Not So Super

The debt ceiling agreement requires the formation of a “super committee” of twelve Senators and Congressmen, who will be charged with finding $1.2 trillion in additional deficit reduction. To approve anything, the committee needs 7 out of 12 votes. If it fails, or if Congress does not approve its recommendations, automatic cuts will kick in to make up the difference between what the committee approves and $1.2 trillion. So, how is the committee stacking up? It’s not horrible.

The Good

● Tax Pledge: Every Republican member has signed Grover Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes.

● Leftist Anger: Leftist bloggers like the Daily Kos are furious at Harry Reid’s picks, which they consider unwilling to defend entitlements.

● Defense Sec. Leon Panetta: Democrat Leon Panetta just undermined the Democratic plan by saying that the super committee should not cut anything else from the defense budget. This will make it hard for Democrats to sell further defense cuts.

● Pat Toomey (R) (McConnell appointee): Toomey is the ultimate Tea Party guy. He’s the former head of the conservative Club for Growth and a Tea Party favorite. In fact, he tried to unseat Arlen Specter before there even was a Tea Party. He’s a solid conservative. Interestingly, he says he would be willing to eliminate deductions and subsidies in exchange for lower income tax rates, but will oppose any sort of “big tax increase.” That puts tax reform on the table.

● Jeb Hensarling (R) (Boehner appointee): Hensarling is a former chair of the conservative Republican Study Committee. He is also a member of the Budget Committee and works closely with Paul Ryan, who asked not to be appointed to this commission. His views are fairly similar to the Tea Party Republicans.

● Fred Upton (R) (Boehner appointee): You might recall Upton from the lightbulb debate. At the time, we weren’t sure if he would be willing to cast off his moderate environmentalism and do a good job of shifting the Energy and Commerce Committee to the right. He has. And he should be a good player here. He seems interested in ending energy subsidies, particularly for wind and solar: “Since I am sure that the industry will never give up its free money voluntarily, now is the time for us to slash it on our terms.” This has freaked out environmentalists.

● John Kyl (R) (McConnell appointee): Kyle is retiring at the end of the year, and wants to be Vice President. He has been a reliable conservative during his time in the Senate. He has a long record of pushing tax cuts and he walked out of the Biden talks because he felt the Democrats only wanted “job-killing tax hikes and new spending.” He also has suggested cutting deductions in exchange for lower rates.

The Bad

● Dave Camp (R) (Boehner appointee): Camp is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. I know nothing about him (which is a bad thing) except that he is a member of both the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership and the conservative Republican Study Committee. Being a member of the RSC is a good thing and he describes himself as a conservative on fiscal policy, but he has favored extending unemployment benefits and the auto bailout.

● Rob Portman (R) (McConnell appointee): Portman is a former Bush budget director, which is not a good thing. He’s a freshman Senator from Ohio and I know little about him, except that he’s considered the weak link on the Republican side. He too has signaled a willingness to reduce tax breaks, but says that those cuts should be used to lower rates.

The Ugly

● Max Baucus (D) (Reid appointee): Finance Committee Chairman Baucus is a wild card. He has shown an ability to act in a bipartisan manner when he worked with Chuck Grassley on a jobs bill which the Democratic left flank hated because it included tax cuts. But he also came up with Obamacare. He is likely to fight to protect farm subsidies and Obamacare. Interestingly, former Republican Senate Alan Simpson, who chaired Obama’s deficit reduction committee of which Baucus was a member, call him an awful choice. He described Baucus as being lazy, unhelpful and out of touch.

● John Kerry (D) (Reid appointee): Kerry is a troubling pick. First, he lobbied to get on the committee because he’s looking for a legacy. That’s always a bad sign. Secondly, he has proved to be a standard liberal ass. Third, he just accused the Tea Party of being the cause of the downgrade and he made the Orwellian suggestion that the media should ignore the Tea Party. That said, he was one of the first to attack Obama’s Afghanistan policy, claiming that we should not stick with a policy just because it exists. And Alan Simpson strangely suggests that: “Kerry will do good work, he really will. I know him well.” If he wants a genuine legacy, then he will need to move right, but we'll see.

The Ugliest

● Patty Murray (D) (Reid appointee): Patty Murray is the most cynical choice. She is the chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. This means that her job is to protect the 22 Democratic senators who are up for re-election in 2012. Their current campaign strategy is to scare old people by slandering the GOP by claiming Republicans are trying to destroy Medicare. Of this pick, one Republican official said: “It is shocking that Harry Reid appointed his chief fundraiser to a committee that will be the central focus of every lobbyist in town.”

● Pelosi: Pelosi has yet to appoint her three clowns, but you can pretty much guess they will be total losers.

At this point, Baucus and Kerry are where we will need to look to get a good deal. At the same time, we will need to watch Portman. My guess is that we end up with a little tax reform, the ending of some deductions and subsidies, a reduction in rates, a trimming of entitlement numbers without an actual plan to cause the cuts, and some minor discretionary cuts.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Did A Light Bulb Come On Or Go Dark?

So how do we interpret some of the moves by the incoming Republicans? In particular, we have a curious decision by John Boehner in his selection of Fred Upton (R-Mich) as chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee. Upton is the moderate Republican responsible for the light bulb law. . . yeah, that one. So should this bother us?

When it came time to select a chairman of the HEC Committee, John Boehner had a choice between Upton and Cliff Stearns (R-Fla). The former chairman, Joe Barton of Texas, was term-limited from receiving the chairmanship. Many conservatives wanted Stearns, but Boehner chose Upton. Should we be concerned?

As always, these things are hard to say until we see how Upton acts. For example, Upton is a member of several moderate Republican groups and he was the author of the evil ban on incandescent light bulbs -- a ban about which Dennis Miller quipped: “I don't care what my electric bill is. I haven't worked my entire life so that my living room can look like a Soviet Bloc stairwell during a James Bond fight scene.”

But Upton now says he was wrong to support that ban and he opposes the law he helped create. He also has pledged to block the EPA’s attempt to back-door a cap-and-trade bill by regulation. Those are both positives.

Moreover, Upton may not be the moderate he seems. For example, he is generally considered a fiscal conservatives. Additionally, he says he wants to repeal ObamaCare because the bill ignored the will of the people and because he believes that such a significant bill should not have been passed over strong bipartisan opposition. He also argues that the current level of debt means ObamaCare is unaffordable. Those are all solidly conservative positions.

He has social conservative credentials as well in that he opposes abortion in most circumstances, including partial-birth abortion. He opposes gay marriage, and has earned only a 15% rating from the Human Rights Campaign. He supports gun right generally, though he did support some gun control laws, including the Brady Bill in 1993.

So how do we reconcile his light-bulb hating moderate credentials with his conservative promises? It could mean he’s simply saying what he thinks the public wants to hear? Moderates in particular are good at that. Or it could mean he’s realized he needs to shift his politics to the right to fit in with the incoming “Tea Party” Republicans? Or maybe, he simply had an epiphany? If so, it’s the same one the voters had. And let me remind you that many of the most conservative of conservatives were once Democrats or moderates or worse. Only time will tell us which of these is the answer.

So what should we make of Boehner choosing him? On the surface, this is troubling. But keep in mind that politics is a strange game that rarely is as simple as black and white. For example, Stearns may have been the more conservative choice, but he may not have been the superior choice. It’s hard to tell as we don’t sit in on the committee and, thus, we don’t see how effective each is. It’s possible Stearns simply lacked the gravitas or personality to lead the committee. Also, over the past few years, the power of the Speakership has grown to the point that the Speaker can control an errant committee chair. Thus, it’s unlikely Upton could do anything Boehner did not approve. Again, we just don't know.

In the end, I’m left with little to offer as a conclusion. We have a man who appears to be a moderate, but is now saying the right things. He has been appointed to a position that appears very important, but ultimately may have little power if he crosses John Boehner. Will this work for us or against us? I don't know. But I do know that this one sits on John Boehner’s head. So let us leave it at that for the moment. Boehner has taken a risk and we will watch to see how his choice plays out. If everything goes well, then Boehner deserves great credit for recognizing Upton's conversion. But if Upton goes back to his light bulb hating ways, then John Boehner will have to answer to the voters for his selection.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...