Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jeb Hensarling explains: Why the Super Committee Failed
Wall Street Journal ^ | 11/23/2011 | Jeb Hensarling

Posted on 11/25/2011 9:30:21 AM PST by SeekAndFind

All now know that the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction has failed to reach an agreement. While there will still be $1.2 trillion of spending cuts as guaranteed under the Budget Control Act, we regrettably missed a historic opportunity to lift the burden of debt and help spur economic growth and job creation. Americans deserve an explanation.

President Obama summed up our debt crisis best when he told Republican members of the House in January 2010 that "The major driver of our long-term liabilities . . . is Medicare and Medicaid and our health-care spending." A few months later, however, Mr. Obama and his party's leaders in Congress added trillions of dollars in new health-care spending to the government's balance sheet.

Democrats on the committee made it clear that the new spending called for in the president's health law was off the table. Still, committee Republicans offered to negotiate a plan on the other two health-care entitlements—Medicare and Medicaid—based upon the reforms included in the budget the House passed earlier this year.

The Medicare reforms would make no changes for those in or near retirement. Beginning in 2022, beneficiaries would be guaranteed a choice of Medicare-approved private health coverage options and guaranteed a premium-support payment to help pay for the plan they choose.

Democrats rejected this approach but assured us on numerous occasions they would offer a "structural" or "architectural" Medicare reform plan of their own. While I do not question their good faith effort to do so, they never did.

Republicans on the committee also offered to negotiate a plan based on the bipartisan "Protect Medicare Act" authored by Alice Rivlin, one of President Bill Clinton's budget directors, and Pete Domenici, a former Republican senator from New Mexico.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: budget; debt; deficit; supercommittee
BOTTOM LINE: Democrats were unwilling to agree to anything less than $1 trillion in tax hikes, and unwilling to offer meaningful reforms for health-care entitlement spending.
1 posted on 11/25/2011 9:30:31 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

it was set up to fail.....period.


2 posted on 11/25/2011 9:31:46 AM PST by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

BOTTOM LINE: Democrats were unwilling to agree to anything less than $1 trillion in tax hikes, but only if there are no corresponding reductions in spending. IOW’s a net gain in government revenues AND spending is their bottom line.


3 posted on 11/25/2011 9:36:33 AM PST by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
1.2 Trillion over 10 year is pure shi!. Means nothing.
4 posted on 11/25/2011 9:42:53 AM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Democrats rejected this approach but assured us on numerous occasions they would offer a "structural" or "architectural" Medicare reform plan of their own. While I do not question their good faith effort to do so, they never did.

Dear Mister Hensarling.

It is so hard to believe that you were such a patsy, and as a result, this fine Country takes a sucker-punch (and Republicans will get blamed for it!)

The very instant I read that absent an agreement, the Super Committee charter specified 600 B in military spending cuts, I KNEW that the Dems would see to it (and so will Mister Obama see to it) that such an agreement is never reached.

As far as the Medicaid and such cuts? Those can be gotten around quite simply with a few decisions by Dem-friendly judges and just re-naming things. (It also sets up an artificial demand for ObamaCare, n'est ce pas, Mister Hensarling?).

There is a bright side, and I have seen it nowhere else, but someone must have considered it.

GOP candidates (Congressional and Executive) can now make it a campaign issue to maintain military funding, and claim that Mister Obama is intentionally fogging the issue to delay then dismantle the military, post election.

.

5 posted on 11/25/2011 9:49:21 AM PST by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

From the article: “Despite the president’s disappointing lack of leadership, I believe my co-chair, Sen. Patty Murray, and every Democrat acted with honor and integrity and negotiated in good faith to the end. It was, of course, difficult to negotiate with six Democrats who, as Democratic committee member Jim Clyburn said on Nov. 13, “never coalesced around a plan” themselves. But I believe this failure was not due to lack of effort or commitment.”

At once, this is the money paragraph and highlights what is wrong with Versailles on the Potomac. Money paragraph, because it shows who is really at fault - the RATs for NOT negotiating in good faith. What’s wrong, because GOP just can’t bring itself to criticize the RATs.

Anyone see the irony of John F’n Kerry, one of the richest members of the Senate, decrying the PUBs for wanting to protect the wealthy?


6 posted on 11/25/2011 9:49:57 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

Exactly. When you place the most partisan Democrats from the Senate on the Committee you killed any chance for success.

It was never meant to work.


7 posted on 11/25/2011 10:21:14 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

I need someone to explain to me at what plateau($) does a Non-wealthy individual become a Wealthy individual.
Secondly of the politicians gracing Congress and the White House which group does each fall into?
Without knowledge of their true worth why do I think most are in the latter group? Most seem to me to have bought themselves into a profit-making Cartel.


8 posted on 11/25/2011 10:26:01 AM PST by GOYAKLA (Re-flush Congress in 2012, some crap remains!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
When the choice is "We have enough money, lets better manage it." as opposed to "We need more money to pay for our poorly managed programs." What are the chances of success?
9 posted on 11/25/2011 10:32:13 AM PST by Phlap (REDNECK@LIBARTS.EDU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
it was set up to fail.....period.

Which means that the article title is incorrect. The super committee actually succeeded. It did exactly what it was supposed to do...fail.

10 posted on 11/25/2011 10:35:18 AM PST by HusbandMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
It failed because all the congressmen are phonies, fakes and frauds, especially the so-called conservatives.

We saw them fold like a cheap camera last summer.

Only the Tea Party budget will save the country.

11 posted on 11/25/2011 10:36:00 AM PST by PALIN SMITH (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

>>>it was set up to fail.....period.

Bingo. It was also set up for the ‘Rats to blame Repubs for the failure.


12 posted on 11/25/2011 10:38:45 AM PST by Keith in Iowa (Hope & Change - I'm out of hope, and change is all I have left every week | FR Class of 1998 |)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
The next ten years' budgets will exceed 45 trillion. And these turkeys couldn't cut 1.2 trillion. If there is any more convincing evidence than this that we have a totally one party state in DC and have had for years, I don't know what it could be.
13 posted on 11/25/2011 10:51:23 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Voters cannot do the math.
Years of a failed public education system has brought us here by design, imho.


14 posted on 11/25/2011 11:24:29 AM PST by griswold3 (Character is Destiny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

it was set up to fail.....period.

&&
Exactly.


15 posted on 11/25/2011 11:30:06 AM PST by Bigg Red (Maryland girl on the Cain Train)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

You are correct.
When the members were announced, I knew nothing would get accomplished. Patty Murray alone could sink a good ship.


16 posted on 11/25/2011 12:44:17 PM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
it was set up to fail.....period.

Aren't these 12 low grade morons advertised to be the best and brightest this country has to offer? (G*d help this country)

17 posted on 11/26/2011 3:28:49 PM PST by dearolddad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson