Tuesday, November 15, 2011

What was not obvious about the stupidity of the Supercommittee idea?

When congress came back with their bill to increase the debt limit, which included the Supercommittee, it was obvious that there were only two possible outcomes from the Supercommittee and both of them were bad.  Why couldn't our leaders, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell see the obvious?  During most of the GOP debates Newt Gingrich has pointed out that this was one of the stupidest pieces of legislation ever put out by congress.  It asks the country to either tear off their left arm or their right arm.

Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt via the Hugh Hewitt radio show: Now we see the Republicans Sen Toomey and Rep Hensarling look like they are about to cave, calling for tax increases. They are saying we don't want the sequestration to go into effect so to make sure it doesn't we [GOP] must compromise with tax increases. How surprising is that.  Not surprising at all. It was a given.  That is why I said this was such a dangerous, stupid idea in the first place.

The liberals don't care about the military being gutted...that is one of their dreams.  Either the Republicans cave or they stand their ground, in which case the Republicans will be blamed for intransigence. Then they will be blamed for the bad economy going forward.  And of course, the liberal media will go along with the Democrats blame of the GOP.  Speaker Boehner and Senator McConnell handed president Obama a gift on a silver platter and  it was so obvious it strains credulity on how our leaders did not see this.  I am praying that the congress and senate get some backbone and say they don't give a damn about the sequestration in the deal, they will not go along with gutting our defense, ergo gutting national security. 

Trust me, I am no political genius, but I could clearly see this the moment the idea of the Supercommittee was announced.

It was so obvious, I posted this on the day the idea of this Supercommittee was proposed, August 1, 2011: There are two possible outcomes of the super commission: both bad.

Quoting directly from my own post over three months ago:
There are two possible outcomes of the 12 member [6 from house and 6 from senate] commission that will decide the other 1.4 trillion in cuts later in the year.

One outcome: Either the commission can't come together and agree to the cuts or they do agree to cuts but it is voted down in congress. In those scenarios, an automatic trigger occurs. It will cut from defense and entitlements and social programs. In the cuts to the entitlements, their is a proviso that says no cuts can come from the recipients of those programs. [like medicare patients, social security recipients, food stamp beneficiaries, etc.]. That means those cuts must come from doctors and hospitals.

But on the defense cuts, which are reported to be 50% of the cuts to be made, there is no proviso about our national security. Now here is the statement I heard this morning that has turned me against this bill. Ambassador John Bolton, who I trust as much as anyone else on the issues of foreign policy and defense, made this statement on the Fox News Channel. He said if the triggers go into effect "it will cut nearly a half trillion dollars out of the defense department over the next 10 years. That would be devastating to the national security of the United States of America."
On that statement alone, how can any conservative American support this bill.

Second outcome: Is there anyone out there who thinks every Democrat member on the commission won't call for tax increases on individuals and businesses. Okay, I don't see any hands raised. The Republicans will then have two options. To go along with the tax cuts or gridlock the commission, which will insure the trigger goes into effect.

So, the two outcomes: tax increases or devastating cuts to the defense of this country.

I guarantee, if either the commission comes out with tax cuts and it is voted down by congress, or the commission is deadlocked, the Republicans will be the ones who get all the blame. Our demagogue in chief will say, because the Republicans were unreasonable and unwilling to compromise, we now have medicare cuts [to doctors and hospitals] and defense cuts. I can almost here him now telling our troops:'I don't know if I can guarantee your payments on time'. I know that's a stretch, but it is just to remind you of how this president operates, i.e., demagogues.

If either taxes are raised or the national security of this country is gutted through destructive cuts in the military, then John Boehner and Mitch McConnell should lose their leadership positions.  What the hell else were they expecting?  I was mad then, now I am really getting upset as what I predicted back then, looks like what will happen.  

Now I must give a plea to Sen Toomey and Rep Hensarling.  Please, keep your pledges to the people not to raise taxes.  Then when the deal does not go through, you lead the charge not to let devastating defense cuts take place in 2013, damn the automatic triggers.  Keep the triggers, or keep the national security of the country strong.      It's your choice gentlemen. 

No comments: