SUPER CONGRESS! Reid announces his picks

[Mr Bean]

Congratulations Republicans for gaining control of both Houses of Congress
Politico

In the first of what will be a closely watched selection process for a powerful new deficit panel, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he will appoint Democratic Sens. Patty Murray (Wash.), Max Baucus (Mont.) and John Kerry (Mass.) as his three choices for a super committee charged with finding more than $1 trillion in spending cuts by the end of this year.

Murray will serve as co-chair of the 12-member panel. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will select her co-chair and two other panelists, as required by the next debt limit agreement signed into law by President Barack Obama last week. Minority Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell will each select three additional members.


“The Joint Select Committee has been charged with forging the balanced, bipartisan approach to deficit reduction that the American people, the markets and rating agencies like Standard and Poor’s are demanding,” Reid said in a statement. “To achieve that goal, I have appointed three senators who each posses an expertise in budget matters, a commitment to a balanced approach and a track record of forging bipartisan consensus.”

Reid’s three picks are intended to show the Nevada Democrat is serious about forging a bipartisan deal to head off $1.2 trillion in spending cuts required under the debt deal. The super committee was Reid’s contribution to the bipartisan agreement to end the debt limit fight.

Murray is the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and close to Reid and the rest of the Senate Democratic leadership. Baucus is the chairman of the powerful Finance Committee, while Kerry - the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee - has been lobbying for a spot.

Reid and Pelosi had been considering whether to install candidates who will draw a hard-line against deep entitlement cuts, particularly if Republicans don’t bend on new taxes. The Democratic leaders want loyalists who won’t give the panel majority support for a cuts-only approach, which could target popular programs like Medicare and Social Security.

“The number one criteria should be someone who fights for revenues and if Republicans continue to rule out revenues, then the Democrats have to play proper defense in response,” said a senior Democratic aide.

In an email sent to her colleagues Monday evening, Pelosi said her caucus was committed to “protecting” Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security - and said that the new panel should deliberate in public settings so that it achieves a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction.

“Many of you have expressed your interest in serving on the Joint Committee,” Pelosi told her colleagues. “I have and will be reaching out to each of you before making any decision.”

Leaders have until next week to announce their picks for the closely watched panel, although Reid’s opening move is expected to speed up that process.

The membership will be crucial, since any deal that receives a majority support will be fast-tracked through the House and Senate for consideration before year’s end.

Read more at the link above

Reminder the Super Congress is a 12 man group, any seven votes (IE 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat) can send a bill to both Congresses for up or down votes with no changes allowed.
And who's a fan of cutting Meidcare and Social Security? And it is not a Republican? Why our good friend Max Baucus.

[Coop D'etat]

Wasn't Baucus the guy that screwed them on health care reform? What has he done to warrent inclusion?

[Mr Bean]

Wasn't Baucus the guy that screwed them on health care reform? What has he done to warrent inclusion?

He's one of the ones who screwed over parts of Heathcare
As to what he's done, it all comes down to Seniority, the Senate runs on it and he's got a lot of it.

[Lord Zentei]

I said it before: this Super Congress idea is such bullshit.

No debate allowed, and a huge pressure to get things done, and therefore, a huge pressure on "regular" Congress to vote 'yea'. If this becomes a prescedent, then Congress has become little more than a rubber stamp for hand picked yahoos. Also, note that Independents need not apply. What a joke. Whose idea was this, anyhow?

[Mr Bean]

No debate allowed, and a huge pressure to get things done, and therefore, a huge pressure on "regular" Congress to vote 'yea'. If this becomes a prescedent, then Congress has become little more than a rubber stamp for hand picked yahoos. Also, note that Independents need not apply. What a joke. Whose idea was this, anyhow?

Depending on who you ask it was either Eric Cantor's staff's idea or John Boehner's staff's idea or some out side group. Either way it was a Republican notion.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Guys, I've got a crazy idea: Let's keep giving votes to Democrats who don't give a flying fuck about following through on their promised policies because they have no fear of their base voting for other candidates.

[erik_t]

And who's a fan of cutting Meidcare and Social Security? And it is not a Republican? Why our good friend Max Baucus.

Independent experts agree the House Plan would make deep cuts to the Medicare benefits seniors count on... It would end Medicare as we know it and funnel Medicare dollars directly into private insurance companies' pockets. Under the House plan, seniors' coverage would be cut drastically, benefits would no longer be guaranteed and seniors' costs would skyrocket. We can't allow the House to balance the budget on the backs of seniors and we won't - not on my watch.

(link)



Better go find something new about which to be panicked or butthurt, because this one won't stand up for long.

[Mr Bean]

Try some actual research my dear erik_T

Max Baucus also wrote the following

I’m disappointed that Leader Cantor’s withdrawn,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus during a hearing on health care spending. “I think we should stay at the table. I think we should keep working, difficult as it is, and try to balance between Medicare cuts — additional Medicare cuts — so long as there is commensurate additional revenue. We need balance here.”

One
two

If you like I can dig up his statements about Medicare from the Bush years, or his actions (Not his statements) from the Heathcare debate from 2009. He's the founder of the Gang of Six during the Heathcare debate. You know the one that agreed to over a hundred and forty republican changes to the Heathcare bill in exchange for zero votes? I know the man well enough to say which way he's going to jump and it's not going to be towards Progressive ideals, not even Democratic ideals. He's a bought and payed for member of the Corporatist party of which the Republicans also belong to.

[Themightytom]

Guys, I've got a crazy idea: Let's keep giving votes to Democrats who don't give a flying fuck about following through on their promised policies because they have no fear of their base voting for other candidates.

The alternative is giving them to Republicans, who are equally indifferent, but much more centralized, and capable.

[J]

From my newsfeed:

MCCONNELL NAMES SENATORS KYL, TOOMEY, PORTMAN TO DEFICIT PANEL
BOEHNER NAMES WAYS AND MEANS CHAIRMAN CAMP TO DEFICIT PANEL
BOEHNER NAMES UPTON, HENSARLING TO DEFICIT PANEL


So the panel thus far is Baucus, Kerry, Murray on the Democrats and Kyl, Toomey, Portman, Camp, Upton, and Hensarling for the GOP.

One thing to note is everyone on the team who held office in 2008, except for Hensarling, voted for TARP. Somehow, i don't find this very reassuring. I just know they're going to do something completely boneheaded.

[TheHammer]

The whole super congress thing is a bit overblown. I for one am glad that they can at least bring some potential changes for an up or down vote without being filibustered or "debated" as media fodder. At may well be that this "mini congress" as I prefer to call it, won't come up with anything and we're stuck with the default cuts. However, If they do manage to come up with sensible suggestions - for both cuts and revenuse increases - that make it through congress then this is going to look like genius.

Also, Its never been clearly stated, but I'm under the presumption that in addition to approval from both houses of congress, any recommendations that are put forwarded would still ultimately be subject to Presidential Veto like any other law. Does anyone care to dispute that?

[Ritterin Sophia]

The alternative is giving them to Republicans, who are equally indifferent, but much more centralized, and capable.

You're a tool if you actually believe that. Third Parties exist in America and the only people to blame for them 'not being viable' are the people who keep refusing to vote for legitimate third parties because they perceive them to be 'nonviable'.

[TheHammer]

The notion that we only have two political parties is actually incorrect. "Democrats" and "Republicans" are more or less coalitions of various people and parties that share some common ground. That's why you see groups such as the Blue Dog democrats, and Tea Party Republicans arise. Its also why you see certain politicians described as RINOs or Closet Republicans etc.

What we ascribe to as being true third partys are actually fifth and sixth parties that are so far out of the mainstream that they can't shoe horn themselves in to democrat or republican. And often their views on some issues are so extreme that they aren't viable. They don't share the views of enough cross section of the population to get elected. So casting your vote for one of them is essentially throwing it away.

I hope most people aren't stupid enough to try and cast a "protest vote" for a third party and end up allowing Republicans back in to the white house. You think its bad now? I assure you it can be far worse.

[The Romulan Republic]

The notion that we only have two political parties is actually incorrect. "Democrats" and "Republicans" are more or less coalitions of various people and parties that share some common ground. That's why you see groups such as the Blue Dog democrats, and Tea Party Republicans arise. Its also why you see certain politicians described as RINOs or Closet Republicans etc.

What we ascribe to as being true third partys are actually fifth and sixth parties that are so far out of the mainstream that they can't shoe horn themselves in to democrat or republican. And often their views on some issues are so extreme that they aren't viable. They don't share the views of enough cross section of the population to get elected. So casting your vote for one of them is essentially throwing it away.

I hope most people aren't stupid enough to try and cast a "protest vote" for a third party and end up allowing Republicans back in to the white house. You think its bad now? I assure you it can be far worse.

Unfortunately a lot of people have swallowed the "Obama is exactly the same as the Republicans" bullshit.

That said, their are too many conservative Democrats. I fully support primary challenges against them.

Edit: and I can certainly understand anger towards the Democrats, and wanting to oppose them. Its just that the thought of a far Right loon getting in is justifiably terrifying.

[Crazedwraith]

The notion that we only have two political parties is actually incorrect. "Democrats" and "Republicans" are more or less coalitions of various people and parties that share some common ground. That's why you see groups such as the Blue Dog democrats, and Tea Party Republicans arise. Its also why you see certain politicians described as RINOs or Closet Republicans etc.

What we ascribe to as being true third partys are actually fifth and sixth parties that are so far out of the mainstream that they can't shoe horn themselves in to democrat or republican. And often their views on some issues are so extreme that they aren't viable. They don't share the views of enough cross section of the population to get elected. So casting your vote for one of them is essentially throwing it away.

I hope most people aren't stupid enough to try and cast a "protest vote" for a third party and end up allowing Republicans back in to the white house. You think its bad now? I assure you it can be far worse.

Unless you have multiple members of each party up the same position. That kind of distinction is kinda pointless as far as democratic choice goes, isn't it?

[Ritterin Sophia]

And often their views on some issues are so extreme that they aren't viable.

This is a self-perpetuating myth, they're seen as nonviable because the morons who should be voting for candidates who represent them are instead voting for Democrats who don't actually give a flying fuck about them.

I hope most people aren't stupid enough to try and cast a "protest vote" for a third party and end up allowing Republicans back in to the white house. You think its bad now? I assure you it can be far worse.

You are everything wrong with the American election process and the people who participate in it. You're too fucking cowardly to actually vote for otherwise great candidates simply because the Democrats aren't as bad as the Republicans.

Unfortunately a lot of people have swallowed the "Obama is exactly the same as the Republicans" bullshit.

We asked this difference once before: Besides DADT, what is the difference between Obama and a Republican?

and I can certainly understand anger towards the Democrats, and wanting to oppose them. Its just that the thought of a far Right loon getting in is justifiably terrifying.

For someone who rants about the lack of viability of third-party candidates you seem to like to pick non-viable ones for your hypothetical opposition. Who is it this time? Donald Trump? Or are you sticking to Bachman?

[CaptainChewbacca]

I refuse to call them a super congress unless they wear capes and fight crime.

[The Romulan Republic]

We asked this difference once before: Besides DADT, what is the difference between Obama and a Republican?

-Health Care. Yes, it was a weak compromise bill. But do you honestly believe we'd have gotten even that much from the Right?

-The Space Program, I think.

-Supreme Court nominees. Obama's nominees aren't going to rule that abortion or gay marriage are Unconstitutional like some conservatives might.

For someone who rants about the lack of viability of third-party candidates you seem to like to pick non-viable ones for your hypothetical opposition. Who is it this time? Donald Trump? Or are you sticking to Bachman?

One, will you please restrict yourself to arguments I actually made in this thread, as opposed to dragging in arguments from a previous debate in a different thread?

Two, can you name one prominent GOP contender who is not either a raving loon, or willing to pander to them in order to win?

[erik_t]

We asked this difference once before: Besides DADT, what is the difference between Obama and a Republican?

Millions of people weren't under/unemployed by the fall of Two of the Big Three. I could go on but I shouldn't have to.

I can't believe notionally intelligent people even ask this question.

[The Romulan Republic]

There are big differences between the Republicans and Obama on space and health care: they would have done a better job!

Explain, please.

[TheHammer]

And often their views on some issues are so extreme that they aren't viable.

This is a self-perpetuating myth, they're seen as nonviable because the morons who should be voting for candidates who represent them are instead voting for Democrats who don't actually give a flying fuck about them.

No, most third parties tend to be extreme in their view points, even for good or ill. I like a lot of what the Green party has to say for example, but the fact is that they aren't realistic in their goals. Good government calls for pragmatism, not idealism. Which is why a pragmatist liberal aligns himself with Democrats who share many (but not all) of the same goals and they work to get done what they can. If they compete against each other, then the other side of the coin - Republicans aligned with the Tea Party can find the votes to beat them where they otherwise would lose.

Example - The 2000 election, you can argue how Bush stole the election, how the Supreme court screwed things up allowing him to win Florida by a scant 543 votes. The Green Party Nominee Ralph Nader recieved a total of 97,488 votes. You know as well as I do that the majority of those votes would have swung Gore's way had Nader not been on the ballot. The result was a Republican Presidential victory and 8 years of policies leading us to where we are now.

If enough idiots cast third party "protest votes" again then we'll be looking at President Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann next time around. And I expect he'll make GWB look like JFK by comparison.

I hope most people aren't stupid enough to try and cast a "protest vote" for a third party and end up allowing Republicans back in to the white house. You think its bad now? I assure you it can be far worse.

You are everything wrong with the American election process and the people who participate in it. You're too fucking cowardly to actually vote for otherwise great candidates simply because the Democrats aren't as bad as the Republicans.

Have you been paying attention to what Republicans have been doing in Wisconsin? In Michigan? If you don't think its going to be worse you are sorely mistaken. Its not cowardice its simply looking at reality. Besides, I haven't seen any "otherwise great candidates" in any of the third parties....

[Uraniun235]

The Republicans could advocate for dropping A-bombs on Iran and abolishing Social Security and Medicare, and if the Democrats said "well we'll only drop conventional bombs on Iran" there'd still be people here lining up to vote Democrat "because I won't throw my vote away and give the election to the Republicans!" Outstanding.

[Alphawolf55]

The Republicans could advocate for dropping A-bombs on Iran and abolishing Social Security and Medicare, and if the Democrats said "well we'll only drop conventional bombs on Iran" there'd still be people here lining up to vote Democrat "because I won't throw my vote away and give the election to the Republicans!" Outstanding.

You know it's possible to vote out democrats who make bad choices while still overall voting democrats right? It's called primary elections they exist, people ignore them but they are real! For christ stakes people, the Democrats are a far bigger coalition then the GOP and have more diversity in their party, when people say they're going to continue voting Democrat because the Republicans are worse, it doesn't mean they want to revote in the same politicians who screwed them over the last term. Unless you're claiming that Democratic leadership and the party as a whole is so against progressive policies that they'll basically remove and block any progressive members of congress. But to claim this would require you to prove that such a conspiracy exist and an even harder challenge in my opinion to prove that the current Democrats are competent enough to pull off said conspiracy.

[Soontir C'boath]

Whoa now, isn't the greater problem and what Uraniun is alluding to about Democrats is that they won't fight hard for progressive policies, not that they don't want it? My US Senators and my Congressman can vote for progressive policies all they want, but if the Democratic Party cannot make Republicans agree to a decent amount of those policies and pass the bill, they're still losers.

[Uraniun235]

The Republicans could advocate for dropping A-bombs on Iran and abolishing Social Security and Medicare, and if the Democrats said "well we'll only drop conventional bombs on Iran" there'd still be people here lining up to vote Democrat "because I won't throw my vote away and give the election to the Republicans!" Outstanding.

You know it's possible to vote out democrats who make bad choices while still overall voting democrats right? It's called primary elections they exist, people ignore them but they are real! For christ stakes people, the Democrats are a far bigger coalition then the GOP and have more diversity in their party, when people say they're going to continue voting Democrat because the Republicans are worse, it doesn't mean they want to revote in the same politicians who screwed them over the last term. Unless you're claiming that Democratic leadership and the party as a whole is so against progressive policies that they'll basically remove and block any progressive members of congress. But to claim this would require you to prove that such a conspiracy exist and an even harder challenge in my opinion to prove that the current Democrats are competent enough to pull off said conspiracy.

How many incumbents actually ever get primaried out? The incumbent politician has enormous advantages, including the vote of the team cheerleader idiots who think "welp, we can't possibly let a repub get this seat, we'd better make sure it's the incumbent so the dems have the best chance of winning" and automatically vote incumbent no matter what.

So after the primary, when the same old shithead wins nomination, will you still vote Democrat?


EDIT: Also, not that there is a conspiracy per se, but I seriously doubt that the Democratic party leadership is at all progressive.