The new "Super Committee". What do you think?

• majorspark

  

  The "Committee" will consist of 12 members. 6 from the Senate and 6 from the House. The majority/minority leaders from the Senate and House can each choose 3 members to serve on the committee. The result: 3 Democrat Senators, 3 Republican Senators, 3 Democrat Representatives, 3 Republican Representatives.
  
  The committee at this point is tasked with dealing with national debt. Which has the potential to morph into anything. The central committee's recommendations come with special rules. Congress will be mandated to carry out an up or down vote, with no amendments allowed, on the recommendations of the super committee.
  
  I hate unrelated amendments and an up or down vote on individual acts is what I have always advocated. It sounded good on paper. But something just did not feel right. This is not the way to accomplish it. The ends did not justify the means. It had the eery feeling of the central committee of the Chinese Politburo (a 24 member elite central committee tasked to "streamline" the lower level bickering elements of their government). I did not want my emotions to cloud my thinking on this so I turned to the Constitution to flesh this one out.
  
  I found my answer. There are a lot of Constitutional problems with this "Super Committee". Number one the separation of powers between the house and senate. All bills have to originate in either the house or the senate. Once passe by both members of the house and senate differences are then settled in a bicameral committee. There is no power in the Constitution for a bicameral body to originate legislation of any kind.
  
  The Constitution clearly states. All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. You can guarandamntee revenue generation will be proposed by this"Super Committee".
  
  Article I Section 5:
  
  Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
  
  Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
  
  Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
  
  Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
  
  Notice "each house" is given power to determine the rules governing its own precedings. They are by design separate competing powers. Its not "both houses". Now we have legislation that binds both houses under one central committee. Its purpose clearly violates the separation of powers between the two houses of congress. Who knows what this "Super Committee" will morph into. Any "controversial" legislation will be subject to the bicameral bipartisan "Super Committee".
  
  http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-sounds-alarm-on-disturbing-super-congress/
• queencitybuckeye

  Nothing unconstitutional about joint committees, there are several of them.
• BGFalcons82

  

  The central committee's recommendations..

  I copied this from Major's post. The only central committees I can think of came out of the USSR, Cuba and China. I'm not sure if Major copied this from some other document or slyly put it in.
  
  The idea of cental committees having power in the USA bothers the hell out of me.
• majorspark

  

  queencitybuckeye;850709 wrote:Nothing unconstitutional about joint committees, there are several of them.

  And their tasks are to recommend their findings to the two bodies where legislation is developed and voted on between the two houses under each houses respective legislative rules. This committee suspends some of these legislative rules. This committee's legislation can't be ammended an up or down vote and no filibustser. Trust me thing will morph into something ugly. It will be a great way to get around all that partisan bickering and gridlock caused by those pesky radicals in each party.
  
  If revenue generation comes out of this committee and no house member can offer an amendment. It is a huge stretch to say it is originating in the house as required. This is what I do not like about it.
  

  “The legislation produced by this commission will be fast-tracked, and Members will not have the opportunity to offer amendments,” said Paul. “Approval of the recommendations of the “Super Congress” is tied to yet another debt ceiling increase. This guarantees that Members will face tremendous pressure to vote for whatever comes out of this commission– even if it includes tax increases. This provision is an excellent way to keep spending decisions out of the reach of members who are not on board with the leadership’s agenda.”
  
  The Congressman added that the committee represents “Nothing more than a way to disenfranchise the majority of Congress by denying them the chance for meaningful participation in the crucial areas of entitlement and tax reform. It cedes power to draft legislation to a special commission, hand-picked by the House and Senate leadership.”
  
  Indeed, the White House has already indicated that it will harness the power of the Super Congress, thereby becoming the de facto deciding 13th member, to terminate the Bush tax cuts from 2012 onwards

• majorspark

  

  There is a reason it is called a "Super Committee" or a "Super Congress".
• queencitybuckeye

  majorspark;850748 wrote:There is a reason it is called a "Super Committee" or a "Super Congress".

  
  Where in the legislation is it referred to as either?
• majorspark

  

  queencitybuckeye;850752 wrote:Where in the legislation is it referred to as either?

  Its not. Thats why I have it in quotes. But in the legislation it is given power that other joint committee's do not possess. That is why everyone including politicians are referring to it as "Super".
• BGFalcons82

  

  majorspark;850748 wrote:There is a reason it is called a "Super Committee" or a "Super Congress".

  
  What is really the take-home for me is the fact that the generation of a political unit and give it power is no longer surprising. From the dozens of czars that had no vetting, have no checks/balances oversight, and no public record of whatever the hell it is they're doing to the EPA that is re-writing every regulation they can get their tentacles on in order to stifle business/growth to creating a healthkare system to be governed by unelected bureaucrats and "doctors" sitting on health panels to decide whom gets treated and whom does not; this Administration knows no bounds and pays zero attention to a 236 year old document that is seen as out of date by them.
  
  They said it when they took power in DC: The Constitution only prescribes what the federal government can't do, it doesn't limit them on what they're allowed to do. And here we are.
• queencitybuckeye

  majorspark;850758 wrote:Its not. Thats why I have it in quotes. But in the legislation it is given power that other joint committee's do not possess. That is why everyone including politicians are referring to it as "Super".

  
  Giving it power that other committees don't have doesn't necessarily mean there are constitutional issues. Every law passed gives someone new powers, or takes them away.
• majorspark

  

  queencitybuckeye;850764 wrote:Giving it power that other committees don't have doesn't necessarily mean there are constitutional issues. Every law passed gives someone new powers, or takes them away.

  True. But I believe these go too far. I'll admit the power to suspend each houses legislative rules the constitution gives each house the power to write, is walking the constitutional fence. But they are planning to use this committee to generate revenue. The constitution is clear All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.
  
  Revenue generating legislation will originate in this Committe that has members of the Senate and then sent to the house as a fully finalized bill. Clear violation.
  
  White house press secretary Jay Carney:
  

  MR. CARNEY: Well, I’ve seen that and I would simply say that the suggestion that it is impossible for the joint committee to raise tax revenue is simply not accurate

  if Congress does not act on tax reform, which, by the way, broadly speaking, is supported by both parties, a desire for tax reform -- so there is great incentive created in this committee to deal with tax reform

  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/01/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-812011
• jhay78

  

  There were precursors of this stuff with the recent deal passed by Congress and signed by Obama. You've got Reid, McConnell, etc. talking with Boehner & the House, all of whom are wheeling and dealing with the White House. It's like everyone has to check with everyone else to make sure everyone else is on board before something can get passed.
  
  The House should've passed the best bill they had (which was Cut Cap & Balance), and sent it to the Senate- repeatedly. If they voted it down, then the House should've sent them another one. Keep sending them bills and let people see who the real obstructionists are.
  
  Instead McConnell and other Republicans in the Senate threw out other plans from the start, which signaled to the Dems that these guys don't have a clue and we can make them cave more than they otherwise would.
• gut

  BGFalcons82;850728 wrote:I copied this from Major's post. The only central committees I can think of came out of the USSR, Cuba and China. I'm not sure if Major copied this from some other document or slyly put it in.
  
  The idea of cental committees having power in the USA bothers the hell out of me.

  Pelosi and/or Reid being on this committee scares the hell out of me.
• believer

  

  gut;851067 wrote:Pelosi and/or Reid being on this committee scares the hell out of me.

  It should scare the hell out of every American.
  
  
• Cleveland Buck

  

  That's really what this whole bill was about, along with raising the debt ceiling. Very few, if any, of the cuts will ever happen, and even if they do it is a joke when you look at the whole scope of the problem. What the Republicrat party was able to do is set up a new entity that bypasses the checks and balances called for in the Constitution.
  
  Nowadays you have the executive branch legislating via executive order, you have bills forced through the Senate with 51 votes, eliminating the threat of filibusters, and now you have a super committee that can create and finalize legislation that can not be amended by either house of Congress. The founders of this country wouldn't even recognize this system of government if they saw it.
• majorspark

  

  gut;851067 wrote:Pelosi and/or Reid being on this committee scares the hell out of me.

  Do you think they would appoint themselves? I would not think so for political reasons. But the idea that those two are appointing half the committee scares the hell out of me. They will definitely be towing their line.
  
  This is now the hottest committee on capitol hill. I read where many members of congress are falling all over themselves to shamelessly kiss the asses of their respective party leaders to get on the "Super Committee". They know the power they will wield and can't wait to get their hands on it. Party leaders now have new power to twist arms and make political deals. There are members of congress ready to sell their souls to get on this committee.
  
  There is another concerned party. K Street lobbyists. They will be making their rounds. Lobbying to get their pet congressman on the committee. Then swarm on the 12 once selected like flies on shit.
• believer

  

  Cleveland Buck;851094 wrote:That's really what this whole bill was about, along with raising the debt ceiling. Very few, if any, of the cuts will ever happen, and even if they do it is a joke when you look at the whole scope of the problem. What the Republicrat party was able to do is set up a new entity that bypasses the checks and balances called for in the Constitution.
  
  Nowadays you have the executive branch legislating via executive order, you have bills forced through the Senate with 51 votes, eliminating the threat of filibusters, and now you have a super committee that can create and finalize legislation that can not be amended by either house of Congress. The founders of this country wouldn't even recognize this system of government if they saw it.

  Don't forget that we have activist judges legislating from the bench too. That one's my favorite!
• majorspark

  

  Harry Reid has selected his three. God only knows what backroom deals are being forged to get on this "Super" committee.
  

  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he will appoint Democratic Sens. Patty Murray (Wash.), Max Baucus (Mont.) and John Kerry (Mass.)

  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60980.html
• gut

  majorspark;856939 wrote:Harry Reid has selected his three. God only knows what backroom deals are being forged to get on this "Super" committee.

  
  This thing is doomed to gridlock. John Kerry?!? If you put hard-liners from both sides on this, as opposed to people closer to center, it almost guarantees nothing substantial will be done. Yes, revenues are part of the equation. If you expect dollar for dollar trade-offs between revenues and cuts (as with the debt ceiling deal), you will not come close to balancing the budget. If you are going to try to block necessary cuts in entitlements, you won't come close to balancing the budget.
• Belly35

  

  Super Committee (any additional committee) will be like pissing up a rope .... dirty and worthless
  
  I have been on committees like this and they go and do nothing but clown the issue and delay the progress set forth by the orginal structure of goverment.
  
  How about this if you are on the committee and fail to come to a agreement you'll fired from congress and senate ... See the problem with committees they have no incentive for success
• believer

  

  Belly35;857100 wrote:See the problem with committees they have no incentive for success

  Which is why this will be an exercise in futility and a waste of taxpayer resources.
  
  It's a smokescreen to deflect public criticism to give these idiots time to campaign for re-election.
  
  After the electorate blindly sends them back to Congress, the "Super Committee" members will see it as a mandate to go back to business as usual. In other words spend taxpayer dollars and find creative ways to spend even more.
• fish82

  

  majorspark;856939 wrote:Harry Reid has selected his three. God only knows what backroom deals are being forged to get on this "Super" committee.
  
  
  
  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60980.html

  Patty Murray? You gotta be fucking kidding me. :rolleyes:
  
  She's a dumb as a fence post...gimme someone "Batshit Crazy" over this developmentally disabled sack of potatoes any day.
• gut

  fish82;857119 wrote:Patty Murray? You gotta be ****ing kidding me. :rolleyes:
  
  She's a dumb as a fence post...gimme someone "Bat**** Crazy" over this developmentally disabled sack of potatoes any day.

  Reid wasn't even shy about admitting he chose people who would not compromise on certain issues. Hopefully Boehner will pick a few Tea Party reps to at least make things entertaining.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  gut;857074 wrote:This thing is doomed to gridlock. John Kerry?!? If you put hard-liners from both sides on this, as opposed to people closer to center, it almost guarantees nothing substantial will be done. Yes, revenues are part of the equation. If you expect dollar for dollar trade-offs between revenues and cuts (as with the debt ceiling deal), you will not come close to balancing the budget. If you are going to try to block necessary cuts in entitlements, you won't come close to balancing the budget.

  
  If you put people in the center up there it guarantees nothing substantial will get done. Look at the debt ceiling bill. This whole committee is a joke to begin with, but you are sadly mistaken if you thinking putting RINOs and moderate Democrats up there will get us real change.
• gut

  Cleveland Buck;857334 wrote:If you put people in the center up there it guarantees nothing substantial will get done. Look at the debt ceiling bill. This whole committee is a joke to begin with, but you are sadly mistaken if you thinking putting RINOs and moderate Democrats up there will get us real change.

  
  I completely disagree. The necessary steps are obvious, but this committee is going to dig in to protect theirs at all costs. Centrists would have a much better chance of compromising and making the rational decisions. You are completely off-base to blame the disappointing debt deal on people in the center - that entire bullshit was driven by people well to the left and right; the people in the middle were just going to vote what their party told them to.
  
  Put 12 "junior" people near the center on that with a chance to make a career from doing something historic and something substantial would get done.
• jhay78

  

  Republicans pick their 6:
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/10/republicans-appoint-their-six-to-super-debt-committee/
  
  Not sure about Boehner's picks, but Kyl, Toomey and Portman seem like good choices from the Senate.