Budget

Yet Another Reason Why It's Better for the Super Committee to Fail

|

I've said it before and I'll probably say it again: The sequester is better.

If the deficit reduction Super Committee doesn't come up with a plan to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, a trigger mechanism called a sequester that reduces planned spening by about $1.1 trillion kicks in instead. As Nick Gillespie recently pointed out, those baseline reductions are relatively minor, and they may not even happen.

But they're better than nothing, which as The Washington Post's Felicia Sonmez points out, is what we could get even if the Super Committee ends up making a recommendation to Congress:

But there's a second way that the committee could fail, one that could be even more politically devastating for members of Congress: The panel could produce a debt-reduction plan, only for one (or both) chambers to shoot it down when it comes up for a floor vote before Dec. 23.

The outlook for such a scenario depends on whom you ask – and even leaders on Capitol Hill have varied perspectives on the matter.

If the Super Committee gets enough votes to back a proposal, Congress is obligated to vote on it. But Congress is not obligated to pass it. Which would leave us with yet another deficit reduction plan that will have zero impact on the deficit.  

Advertisement

NEXT: The Case for Legal Organ Sales

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You missed the main reason the sequester is better:

    It goes into effect right away.

    Whatever cuts the Supe gronks out will be backloaded, which is to say, entirely fictional.

    I honestly don’t know why any Congresspuke is fighting cuts by the Supe. They will be pure window-dressing. I thought Congresspukes lived for that kind of shit.

    1. We’ve got to the point that even thinking about cuts ten years from now is unacceptably draconian.

  2. Are we still taking the committee seriously? I was under the impression that any cuts, even the automatic ones, could simply be repealed by congress before they have an effect on spending.

  3. I want to put together a super committee to investigate how Suderman not only had to google his own previous Reason article, but copied and pasted that google redirect link here.

    And I believe the actual committees’s debt reduction plan will not make it through Congress, window dressing or not.

  4. The sequester is better, for sure. But John McCain says he’s going to fight the defense cuts while the progressives are sure to fight the medicare cuts. But I think both parties know any deal from the super committee is DOA, thanks to the Tea Party. I may be giving them too much credit, but maybe the sober leaders realize a slight chance of a reduction in the increase of spending is better for America than nothing.

    1. Thanks to the Tea Party?

      Why single them out? This looks to me like a comprehensive failure of both major parties. To the extent the Tea Party caucus is involved, they are the ones pushing for some semblance of fiscal sanity.

      1. Bush caused it and the Tea Party will make sure it doesn’t get fixed.

        Did somebody poop?

  5. Sometimes teh fail is best!

  6. Definitely believe that which you stated. Your favorite reason seemed to be on the web the easiest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I definitely get irked while people think about worries that they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out the whole thing without having side effect , people could take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.