Post by caseagainstfaith on Nov 4, 2011 15:18:44 GMT -5
WASHINGTON — As pessimism mounted this week over the ability of a bipartisan Congressional committee to agree on a deficit-reduction plan, lawmakers began taking steps to head off the large cuts in Pentagon spending that would automatically result from a failure of the panel.
Members of both parties and both chambers said they were increasingly fearful that the 12-member committee would be unable to bridge deep partisan chasms and find $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction as required under the law that raised the debt ceiling and created the committee in the summer.
As talks sputtered, one panel member publicly lamented that the process was not working, and the group was chastised by a bipartisan group of budget experts at a public hearing as failing to show progress. Several members of Congress, especially Republicans on the House and Senate armed services committees, are readying legislation that would undo the automatic across-the-board cuts totaling nearly $500 billion for military programs, or exchange them for cuts in other areas of the federal budget.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, has drafted a bill that would replace the defense cuts that would occur under a process known as sequestration with a 5 percent across-the-board cut to government spending. It would be combined with a 10 percent cut in pay for members of Congress. In the House, similar measures are being assembled.
“If the joint select committee does not do what it needs to do,” said Representative K. Michael Conaway, Republican of Texas and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, “most of us will move heaven and earth to find an alternative that prevents a sequester from happening.”
After listening to dire predictions by the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the effects of automatic cuts, Representative John Garamendi, Democrat of California, was even more blunt. “The sequester will never take place,” Mr. Garamendi said. “It’s not going to happen.”
Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate and a member of the deficit-reduction committee, has repeatedly said he has no intention of letting such cuts occur. Some House members said they were being urged by defense contractors and other military interests in their districts to avert such reductions. One House Democrat said that private conversations about undoing the sequester have occurred between staffers for the House Armed Services Committee and defense industry representatives.
“There is more fear this time,” said Representative Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama, about the anxiety being expressed by military contractors in his district. Mr. Brooks said he voted against the debt-ceiling legislation because of the possibility of deep Pentagon cuts.
Under the debt-ceiling budget agreement, members of the joint committee, evenly divided between the parties, have until Nov. 23 to recommend ways to reduce budget deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Both houses are supposed to vote on the package by Dec. 23. If no legislation is enacted, the government would automatically cut almost $500 billion from military spending, with an equal amount from nondefense programs, between 2013 and 2021.
The inability of the committee to reach an agreement would be a major embarrassment not only for its members, but for the Congress, which already suffers from record low approval ratings. Efforts to undo the automatic cuts could also lead to a further downgrade of federal debt, as rating agencies have been counting on the savings as evidence of Washington’s commitment to easing the deficit.
Republican leaders have so far pushed the panel to come to an agreement that would make talk of undoing the cuts unnecessary.
The House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, said he wanted the joint committee to succeed, but would not tamper with the mechanism for automatic cuts. “I would feel bound by it,” Mr. Boehner said. “It was part of the agreement. The sequester is ugly. Why? Because we don’t want anybody to go there.”
Members of both parties and both chambers said they were increasingly fearful that the 12-member committee would be unable to bridge deep partisan chasms and find $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction as required under the law that raised the debt ceiling and created the committee in the summer.
As talks sputtered, one panel member publicly lamented that the process was not working, and the group was chastised by a bipartisan group of budget experts at a public hearing as failing to show progress. Several members of Congress, especially Republicans on the House and Senate armed services committees, are readying legislation that would undo the automatic across-the-board cuts totaling nearly $500 billion for military programs, or exchange them for cuts in other areas of the federal budget.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, has drafted a bill that would replace the defense cuts that would occur under a process known as sequestration with a 5 percent across-the-board cut to government spending. It would be combined with a 10 percent cut in pay for members of Congress. In the House, similar measures are being assembled.
“If the joint select committee does not do what it needs to do,” said Representative K. Michael Conaway, Republican of Texas and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, “most of us will move heaven and earth to find an alternative that prevents a sequester from happening.”
After listening to dire predictions by the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the effects of automatic cuts, Representative John Garamendi, Democrat of California, was even more blunt. “The sequester will never take place,” Mr. Garamendi said. “It’s not going to happen.”
Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate and a member of the deficit-reduction committee, has repeatedly said he has no intention of letting such cuts occur. Some House members said they were being urged by defense contractors and other military interests in their districts to avert such reductions. One House Democrat said that private conversations about undoing the sequester have occurred between staffers for the House Armed Services Committee and defense industry representatives.
“There is more fear this time,” said Representative Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama, about the anxiety being expressed by military contractors in his district. Mr. Brooks said he voted against the debt-ceiling legislation because of the possibility of deep Pentagon cuts.
Under the debt-ceiling budget agreement, members of the joint committee, evenly divided between the parties, have until Nov. 23 to recommend ways to reduce budget deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Both houses are supposed to vote on the package by Dec. 23. If no legislation is enacted, the government would automatically cut almost $500 billion from military spending, with an equal amount from nondefense programs, between 2013 and 2021.
The inability of the committee to reach an agreement would be a major embarrassment not only for its members, but for the Congress, which already suffers from record low approval ratings. Efforts to undo the automatic cuts could also lead to a further downgrade of federal debt, as rating agencies have been counting on the savings as evidence of Washington’s commitment to easing the deficit.
Republican leaders have so far pushed the panel to come to an agreement that would make talk of undoing the cuts unnecessary.
The House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, said he wanted the joint committee to succeed, but would not tamper with the mechanism for automatic cuts. “I would feel bound by it,” Mr. Boehner said. “It was part of the agreement. The sequester is ugly. Why? Because we don’t want anybody to go there.”
source - www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/us/politics/lawmakers-aim-to-stop-pentagon-cuts-if-deficit-panel-fails.html?google_editors_picks=true
If the democrats actually fold and allowed the GOP to reverse the pentagon cuts if the super-committee fails I would lose the faith that is left in the democrats. But it is funny watching the republicans freaking out that this super-committee idea might fail on them.
