New Debt Committee: Vertebrates Need Not Apply

Thanatos

Harry Reid announced his picks for the debt uber-committee.

We have Senator Max Baucus of Montana, Senator John Kerry of Massachussetts, and Senator Patty Murray of Washington in the co-chair position. What do these three senators have in common? Well, all three of them voted "yes" on the Republican Appeasement Act of 2011.

I suspect we'll see the same sort of appeasement in their role on the committee, given that the Republicans on the committee will probably all be Michele Bachmann clones, and already know these Democrats will fold under a mild wind. I can see it already: "okay, Republicans, listen up, we're gonna get tough: we'll give you cuts to Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, TANF, veterans services, and we'll repeal Obamacare, but only if you accept a mere 50% raise in defense spending."

What are people's guesses for who's going to end up on the committee from the House? What about the Republican side?

I'm going to be surprised if Cantor isn't on the committee.

enc0re

I hope the Senate puts McCain in so that he flip his lid at whoever that House Tea Party rep will be from time to time.

Eddy

I have a feeling all 6 GOPers will be either Tea Partier or TP sympathizers

Atomika

I don't think there will be any number of Teapers greater than one, for appeasements sake. The rest will likely be Cantor, McConnell, Rand Paul, Hutchinson, and let's say . . . McCain. Why not.

DevoutlyApathetic

I really doubt the R leadership is going to let loose cannons like Paul or McCain anywhere near that committee. They might actually endorse serious cuts.

Thanatos

I wonder if DeMint will manage to get on the committee?

Captain Carrot

Nah, I think he'd prefer to criticize anything it produces as not being good enough.

Deebaser

Baucus? Jesus fuck

Bagginses

So they're bad because they decided not to make a purely symbolic vote against a bill that we all know had to be passed. Oooooooooooooooooooookaaaaaaaaaaaay.

Lawndart

Thanatos wrote:

Harry Reid announced his picks for the debt uber-committee.

We have Senator Max Baucus of Montana, Senator John Kerry of Massachussetts, and Senator Patty Murray of Washington in the co-chair position. What do these three senators have in common? Well, all three of them voted "yes" on the Republican Appeasement Act of 2011.

I suspect we'll see the same sort of appeasement in their role on the committee, given that the Republicans on the committee will probably all be Michele Bachmann clones, and already know these Democrats will fold under a mild wind. I can see it already: "okay, Republicans, listen up, we're gonna get tough: we'll give you cuts to Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, TANF, veterans services, and we'll repeal Obamacare, but only if you accept a mere 50% raise in defense spending."

What are people's guesses for who's going to end up on the committee from the House? What about the Republican side?

I'm going to be surprised if Cantor isn't on the committee.

I'm positive Cantor wants to be on the committee, but Boehner might see it as a challenge for his Speaker gig and try and fuck Cantor out of it.

I'm also pretty sure the Republican nominees are going to be hardcore fuck-the-poor austerity pimps. Like, say, Max Baucus...oh, yeah, he's...fuck you, Harry Reid.

Off the top of my head, that means Rand Paul and/or Jim DeMint from the Senate, and certainly Paul Ryan from the House.

Tox

They should put Ron Paul in there, too. He's gonna be out of a job soon, anyway.

wwtMask

Is it too much to hope for Kucinich?

Yeah, yeah it is

Aegis

How is Patty Murray? Haven't heard of her before.

I'd be shocked if the GOP didn't put Paul Ryan on there considering how much they were hoisting him up over the past several months.

Quid

Atomic Ross wrote:

I don't think there will be any number of Teapers greater than one, for appeasements sake. The rest will likely be Cantor, McConnell, Rand Paul, Hutchinson, and let's say . . . McCain. Why not.

Would they put Hutchinson on there if she's getting out in 2012?

Chanus

Aegis wrote:

How is Patty Murray? Haven't heard of her before.

I'd be shocked if the GOP didn't put Paul Ryan on there considering how much they were hoisting him up over the past several months.

That was before the backlash about the government putting their hands on Medicare.

Derrick

True, Chanus. Of course, they could just seat catatonics and the Democratic choices will still be falling all over themselves to enact the corporate agenda and screw the people.

That's what happens when the spineless get to choose who gets the seats, I guess.

Savant

Aegis wrote:

How is Patty Murray? Haven't heard of her before.

I'd be shocked if the GOP didn't put Paul Ryan on there considering how much they were hoisting him up over the past several months.

She's basically generic bland democrat. She's not as bad as a Baucus or a Conrad, but I wouldn't expect too much out of her other than just going along with what the leadership wants.

Syrdon

Derrick wrote:

True, Chanus. Of course, they could just seat catatonics and the Democratic choices will still be falling all over themselves to enact the corporate agenda and screw the people.

I'm pretty sure that's a safe bet regardless of who gets put on the committee. I don't see Cantor getting a spot, but I'm thinking a pair of outright Tea Party folks and the rest being pretty close (not sure that's a useful distinction in the current GOP though). I'd love to see McCain, but he's too likely to call someone an idiot because they are one.

Phoenix-D

Savant wrote:

Aegis wrote:

How is Patty Murray? Haven't heard of her before.

I'd be shocked if the GOP didn't put Paul Ryan on there considering how much they were hoisting him up over the past several months.

She's basically generic bland democrat. She's not as bad as a Baucus or a Conrad, but I wouldn't expect too much out of her other than just going along with what the leadership wants.

Also from WA, which means Boeing, which means prooobably no defense cuts.

enc0re

Is this committee going to operate on regular (i.e. simple majority) rules? As opposed to the crazy super-duper-majority rules of Simpson Bowles.

If so, the Senate may supply enough moderates to make the Tea Party folks laughably irrelevant.

Hacksaw

I, for one, and pleased to see my home state getting some representation on matter which concerns the well being of the entire nation.

Because really, fuck every state that's not on the West Coast/not above the Mason-Dixon line on the East Coast. It's basically their fault entirely that we're in this mess.

enc0re

Hacksaw wrote:

Because really, fuck every state that's not on the West Coast/not above the Mason-Dixon line on the East Coast. It's basically their fault entirely that we're in this mess.

The fuck's your problem with Hawaii?

Syrdon

Hacksaw wrote:

I, for one, and pleased to see my home state getting some representation on matter which concerns the well being of the entire nation.

Because really, fuck every state that's not on the West Coast/not above the Mason-Dixon line on the East Coast. It's basically their fault entirely that we're in this mess.

I had the same thought, but honestly, the dude from my state and I disagree on more than we agree. Particularly when it comes to government spending. But that appears to be true of everyone that will end up on this committee, so at least I can whine to Baucus completely ineffectively.

edit: sidenote: maybe I'm weird, but somehow I don't include Hawaii when I say the West Coast. I'm not sure I have real basis for this.

Thanatos

Murray is liberal, but a pushover, as illustrated by her vote on the debt ceiling.

I am seriously pissed that her getting on the committee basically eliminates any chance of Joe McDermott getting on the committee. If we were going to have anyone from Washington, it should have been him.

Quid

Hacksaw wrote:

I, for one, and pleased to see my home state getting some representation on matter which concerns the well being of the entire nation.

Because really, fuck every state that's not on the West Coast/not above the Mason-Dixon line on the East Coast. It's basically their fault entirely that we're in this mess.

I move from Texas and you still hate me. What'd Hawaii ever do to you?

Captain Carrot

enc0re wrote:

Is this committee going to operate on regular (i.e. simple majority) rules? As opposed to the crazy super-duper-majority rules of Simpson Bowles.

If so, the Senate may supply enough moderates to make the Tea Party folks laughably irrelevant.

Heh. Republican Senate moderates. That's funny.

Bagginses

Quid wrote:

Hacksaw wrote:

I, for one, and pleased to see my home state getting some representation on matter which concerns the well being of the entire nation.

Because really, fuck every state that's not on the West Coast/not above the Mason-Dixon line on the East Coast. It's basically their fault entirely that we're in this mess.

I move from Texas and you still hate me. What'd Hawaii ever do to you?

It has a west coast.

Quid

But we're still south of the Mason Dixon line.

Deebaser

Maybe McCain will attone for all the horrible shit he's done in his life and in his own way "earn" the label Maverick

Fallout2man

enc0re wrote:

The fuck's your problem with Hawaii?

One word: Volcanoes

I'm still waiting to hear the house picks before I get really upset about any of this. My guess is that Reid appointed Bacaus because the Senate appointments were meant to seem more moderate than the house. I'm betting we see McConnel appoint some moderates from the Senate and then the house goes to crazytown. In return, I'm hoping, we can get at least one or two house progressives nominated for the committee.

Salvation122

Captain Carrot wrote:

enc0re wrote:

Is this committee going to operate on regular (i.e. simple majority) rules? As opposed to the crazy super-duper-majority rules of Simpson Bowles.

If so, the Senate may supply enough moderates to make the Tea Party folks laughably irrelevant.

Heh. Republican Senate moderates. That's funny.

Snow/Collins.

For that matter Bob Corker isn't much of a fascist, particularly on economic issues.

Edit: Or he didn't used to be, anyway. Votes over the past year or so show him tacking right.

Captain Carrot

Snowe and Collins talk a great game, but that's all they do.

MyDcmbr

Oh look, no one from the "Gang of Six"

For some reason, I am not surprised.

Hacksaw

Quid wrote:

Hacksaw wrote:

I, for one, and pleased to see my home state getting some representation on matter which concerns the well being of the entire nation.

Because really, fuck every state that's not on the West Coast/not above the Mason-Dixon line on the East Coast. It's basically their fault entirely that we're in this mess.

I move from Texas and you still hate me. What'd Hawaii ever do to you?

Addendum: Hawaii's cool.

Lawndart

Fallout2man wrote:

I'm still waiting to hear the house picks before I get really upset about any of this. My guess is that Reid appointed Bacaus because the Senate appointments were meant to seem more moderate than the house. I'm betting we see McConnel appoint some moderates from the Senate and then the house goes to crazytown. In return, I'm hoping, we can get at least one or two house progressives nominated for the committee.

I'd be willing to bet that McConnell appoints two Teapers and one less crazy Senator and calls it a moderate coalition, Boehner nominates Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and one other Teaper lunatic to be named later, and Pelosi doesn't nominate anyone from the House Progressive Caucus.

Thanatos

Lawndart wrote:

I'd be willing to bet that McConnell appoints two Teapers and one less crazy Senator and calls it a moderate coalition, Boehner nominates Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and one other Teaper lunatic to be named later, and Pelosi doesn't nominate anyone from the House Progressive Caucus.

I doubt that McConnell will bother with the "less crazy Senator." It'll just be three straight-up crazies, and he'll call it a "moderate coalition."

sterling3763

So, on the Republican side:
Boehner picked: Hensarling, Camp, Upton.

Mcconnell selected: Kyl, Toomey, Portman.

Heartlash

Isn't Kyl retiring in a year?

NailbunnyPD

Its like the opposite of Draft Day!

Heartlash wrote:

Isn't Kyl retiring in a year?

That may not be a bad thing. While I don't know much about the guy, being able to decide without repercussion could play out in favor of rationality.

Oh, he's the Planned Parenthood is 90% abortions guy.

Aegis

TPM has a quick summary that's pretty much as you'd expect:

But across the board it's difficult to fathom any of the six Republicans on the committee agreeing to significant new revenues. All of them have signed Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge. None of the Senators participated in the bipartisan Gang of Six talks, which resulted in a plan that called for higher revenues. And many of them have helped lead the GOP fight against increasing taxes in any deficit package -- part of a broader bid to force Democrats to agree to significant cuts to entitlement programs.

Kyl, who's retiring at the end of next year, participated in a working group led by Vice President Joe Biden in the run-up to the debt limit brinksmanship. He ultimately abandoned those discussions, following Eric Cantor's lead, when Democrats insisted it was time to turn from spending cuts to tax increases.

Portman was a member of the House for years, and headed President George W. Bush's Office of Management and Budget for about a year in 2006 and 2007, during which time, of course, taxes remained low. He was one of many GOP senators to applaud the Gang of Six's recommendations, which did call for revenues to be higher than they currently are, but his office quickly corrected the record: Portman "believes we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and that tax reform should be used not to increase revenue, but to bring about a more efficient and competitive tax code by lowering rates while clearing out underbrush."

As former President of the far right anti-tax group Club for Growth, Toomey's a lost cause. At an American Enterprise Institute event several weeks ago, he insisted zero dollars in new tax revenues. Not even if every dollar was matched by nine in spending cuts. Not even a single dollar. If all six members were like him, it would be perfectly safe to bet on immediate, unbreakable gridlock.

Once upon a time, Upton might have been willing to cut a deal that included tax cuts -- but it's hard to imagine that happening in the current environment. Same goes for Camp. But not in today's house, where all Republicans of stature must genuflect to the Tea Party. It's somewhat notable that Boehner appointed his top tax guy to the panel, if new tax revenues are really and truly meant to be verboten. But it's just as likely a sign of something other than flexibility -- territoriality perhaps, or vigilance, to assure that any tweaks to the tax code are revenue neutral.

enc0re

sterling3763 wrote:

So, on the Republican side:
Boehner picked: Hensarling, Camp, Upton.

Mcconnell selected: Kyl, Toomey, Portman.

Go Michigan. Wolverines!