Super Congress??

[HuskyCaucasian]

Via HuffPo-

 

Debt ceiling negotiators think they've hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public's unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress.

 

This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

 

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

 

(more at the link)

[mr_genius]

Via HuffPo-

 

terrible idea.

[southsider2k5]

The sad thing is that this sort of exists right now if you look at how the negotiations have been conducted for the debt hikes.

[EvilMonkey]

The sad thing is that this sort of exists right now if you look at how the negotiations have been conducted for the debt hikes.

Not really. The Dems have yet to put any proposal on the table. They TALK about them, but nothing has ever been presented.

[Balta1701]

Not really. The Dems have yet to put any proposal on the table. They TALK about them, but nothing has ever been presented.

Technically, legislation is supposed to originate in the House. (Although I think you're wrong that no plan has ever been presented by the Dems).

[Cknolls]

Technically, legislation is supposed to originate in the House. (Although I think you're wrong that no plan has ever been presented by the Dems).

 

 

What were Obama's cuts to the entitltement programs? Can't seem to find any specifics.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Cknolls

[Balta1701]

What were Obama's cuts to the entitltement programs? Can't seem to find any specifics.

Here's one version.

Medicare: Raising the eligibility age, imposing higher premiums for upper income beneficiaries, changing the cost-sharing structure, and shifting Medigap insurance in ways that would likely reduce first-dollar coverage. This was to generate about $250 billion in ten-year savings. This was virtually identical to what Boehner offered.

 

Medicaid: Significant reductions in the federal contribution along with changes in taxes on providers, resulting in lower spending that would likely curb eligibility or benefits. This was to yield about $110 billion in savings. Boehner had sought more: About $140 billion. But that’s the kind of gap ongoing negotiation could close.

 

Social Security: Changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living increases in order to reduce future payouts. The idea was to close the long-term solvency gap by one-third, although it likely would have taken more than just this one reform to produce enough savings for that.

 

Discretionary spending: A cut in discretionary spending equal to $1.2 trillion over ten years, some of them coming in fiscal year 2012. The remaining differences here, over the timing of such cuts, were tiny.

 

The two sides had also agreed upon a basic structure for the deal. The agreement was to specify the discretionary cuts and implement them right away. But the entitlement cuts and new revenue were to be in the form of instructions to Congress, leaving it committees and eventually each chamber to write the legislative language and enact the changes. To make sure Congress followed through, the agreement was to include a failsafe: If Congress failed to enact the changes and produce the necessary deficit reduction, then automatic reductions to Medicare and Medicaid as well as automatic tax increases (mainly, expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy) were to take effect.

 

The main difference, as both sides acknowledge, was over the size of the new revenue. They’d basically settled the basic principles of how to get the money: By closing loopholes, broadening the base, and lowering rates overall. Boehner had offered $800 billion, or roughly the equivalent of letting the upper income tax cuts expire. Obama had counter-offered $1.2 trillion. But even the $1.2 trillion Obama was seeking – and remember, this was a proposal over which the White House says it expected to keep negotiating – was still far less than the revenue either the Bowles-Simpson chairmen or the Senate’s Gang of Six, two bipartisan groups, had recommended. When this debate started, liberals like me were advocating a balance of spending reductions to new revenue of roughly one-to-one, which is what the Bipartisan Policy Center’s report by Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin had recommended. But the president had been offering, right up through the end of these negotiations, plans that had ratios of roughly three-to-one or maybe worse.

Raising the Medicare Eligibility age would be the worst idea ever, btw. I'd 3rd party it if the President signed a bill for that. That would destroy the Democratic party, so you ought to love that. He might get 25% of the vote.

[southsider2k5]

Here's one version.

Raising the Medicare Eligibility age would be the worst idea ever, btw. I'd 3rd party it if the President signed a bill for that. That would destroy the Democratic party, so you ought to love that. He might get 25% of the vote.

 

It should be a recognition of the fact that people are living longer than ever.

[Balta1701]

It should be a recognition of the fact that people are living longer than ever.

Yeah. We need to turn that trend around by having a boatload of uninsured 65-66 year olds. Once we do that and get rid of the individual mandate, we'll get that life expectancy going the right way.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah. We need to turn that trend around by having a boatload of uninsured 65-66 year olds. Once we do that and get rid of the individual mandate, we'll get that life expectancy going the right way.

 

So will we when the plan goes insolvent.

[Balta1701]

So will we when the plan goes insolvent.

The private market will go insolvent before Medicare, since private insurance costs are still growing faster than Medicare.

 

Dumping a bunch of 65-66 year olds into the more expensive system will make that exponentially worse as well.

[southsider2k5]

The private market will go insolvent before Medicare, since private insurance costs are still growing faster than Medicare.

 

Dumping a bunch of 65-66 year olds into the more expensive system will make that exponentially worse as well.

 

The private market will go insolvent? Really?

[Balta1701]

The private market will go insolvent? Really?

Makes as much sense as saying that Medicare will.

[southsider2k5]

Makes as much sense as saying that Medicare will.

 

Because the private system isn't funded by taxes, then again that is the whole point for you.

[Balta1701]

Because the private system isn't funded by taxes, then again that is the whole point for you.

Except for the $300 billion+ a year the Feds chip in through the Health Insurance Tax Deduction?

[southsider2k5]

Except for the $300 billion+ a year the Feds chip in through the Health Insurance Tax Deduction?

 

And what percentage of total funding is that?

[Balta1701]

And what percentage of total funding is that?

Health care in total is a $1.7 trillion-ish industry in the U.S. $500 billion-ish goes to Medicare, MEdicaid is about $380 billion. Then there's some additional monies tossed around by the uninsured. Basically, that tax credit winds up covering somewhere around 40-50% of the cost of private health insurance in this country.

[Cknolls]

I am a seller of this gov't closing loopholes. Loopholes, cutting waste, blah blah. Just another way of kicking can down the road. Like SS2K5 said, real cuts will occur when you do not just slow the rate but actually cut this s***. This too will fail. Glad I went home short 25 futures Fri.

[Balta1701]

Glad I went home short 25 futures Fri.

This may be a smart move. There seems to be enough "This is real" now that Monday or Tuesday might be the day that really shakes things up.

[Quin]

[southsider2k5]

Health care in total is a $1.7 trillion-ish industry in the U.S. $500 billion-ish goes to Medicare, MEdicaid is about $380 billion. Then there's some additional monies tossed around by the uninsured. Basically, that tax credit winds up covering somewhere around 40-50% of the cost of private health insurance in this country.

 

So it is a fraction, versus the 100% of medicare/cade.

[NorthSideSox72]

Not really. The Dems have yet to put any proposal on the table. They TALK about them, but nothing has ever been presented.

This is a joke, right? Obama (not the Congressional Dems) has tried a bunch of ideas, and the GOP just says "no new revenue!" and leaves the table.

 

Now the Congressional Dems, yeah, they have done very little, I'll agree with you there.

 

[BigSqwert]

A thread about "Super Congress" and not one post mentioning super strength, flying, or mutations?

[Balta1701]

A thread about "Super Congress" and not one post mentioning super strength, flying, or mutations?

I thought those powers were reserved for the Ex-Presidents.

[StrangeSox]