[docthehun]

After a well deserved break, 6 members from each party will get all of this sorted out....again. I say we let each party choose the opposition's 6 representatives. Boy would that be a change to Washington's, "business as usual" program. :)

[NapRover]

I say we put them all in a cage and play Celebrity Death Match!

[bethere]

Originally Posted by docthehun

After a well deserved break, 6 members from each party will get all of this sorted out....again. I say we let each party choose the opposition's 6 representatives. Boy would that be a change to Washington's, "business as usual" program. :)

have you ever sat on a committee with an even number of democrats and republicans?

i have.

expect the triggers to go into effect.

[scooter1369]

Originally Posted by bethere

have you ever sat on a committee with an even number of democrats and republicans?

i have.

expect the triggers to go into effect.

Thanksgiving at your house doesn't count.

[majorspark]

The "Committee" will consist of 12 members. 6 from the Senate and 6 from the House. The majority/minority leaders from the Senate and House can each choose 3 members to serve on the committee. The result: 3 Democrat Senators, 3 Republican Senators, 3 Democrat Representatives, 3 Republican Representatives.

The committee at this point is tasked with dealing with national debt. Which has the potential to morph into anything. The central committee's recommendations come with special rules. Congress will be mandated to carry out an up or down vote, with no amendments allowed, on the recommendations of the super committee.

I hate unrelated amendments and an up or down vote on individual acts is what I have always advocated. It sounded good on paper. But something just did not feel right. This is not the way to accomplish it. The ends did not justify the means. It had the eery feeling of the central committee of the Chinese Politburo (a 24 member elite central committee tasked to "streamline" the lower level bickering elements of their government). I did not want my emotions to cloud my thinking on this so I turned to the Constitution to flesh this one out.

I found my answer. There are a lot of Constitutional problems with this "Super Committee". Number one the separation of powers between the house and senate. All bills have to originate in either the house or the senate. Once passed by both members of the house and senate differences are then settled in a bicameral committee. There is no power in the Constitution for a bicameral body to originate legislation of any kind.

The Constitution clearly states. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. You can guarandamntee revenue generation will be proposed by this "Super Committee".

Article I Section 5:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Notice "each house" is given power to determine the rules governing its own precedings. They are by design separate competing powers. Its not "both houses". Now we have legislation that binds both houses under one central committee. Its purpose clearly violates the separation of powers between the two houses of congress. Who knows what this "Super Committee" could morph into. Any "controversial" legislation stalled in congress could be subject to the bicameral bipartisan "Super Committee".

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-sou...uper-congress/

[majorspark]

Originally Posted by scooter1369

Thanksgiving at your house doesn't count.

LOL!

[tomindayton]

Originally Posted by majorspark

The "Committee" will consist of 12 members. 6 from the Senate and 6 from the House. The majority/minority leaders from the Senate and House can each choose 3 members to serve on the committee. The result: 3 Democrat Senators, 3 Republican Senators, 3 Democrat Representatives, 3 Republican Representatives.

The committee at this point is tasked with dealing with national debt. Which has the potential to morph into anything. The central committee's recommendations come with special rules. Congress will be mandated to carry out an up or down vote, with no amendments allowed, on the recommendations of the super committee.

I hate unrelated amendments and an up or down vote on individual acts is what I have always advocated. It sounded good on paper. But something just did not feel right. This is not the way to accomplish it. The ends did not justify the means. It had the eery feeling of the central committee of the Chinese Politburo (a 24 member elite central committee tasked to "streamline" the lower level bickering elements of their government). I did not want my emotions to cloud my thinking on this so I turned to the Constitution to flesh this one out.

I found my answer. There are a lot of Constitutional problems with this "Super Committee". Number one the separation of powers between the house and senate. All bills have to originate in either the house or the senate. Once passed by both members of the house and senate differences are then settled in a bicameral committee. There is no power in the Constitution for a bicameral body to originate legislation of any kind.

The Constitution clearly states. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. You can guarandamntee revenue generation will be proposed by this "Super Committee".

Article I Section 5:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Notice "each house" is given power to determine the rules governing its own precedings. They are by design separate competing powers. Its not "both houses". Now we have legislation that binds both houses under one central committee. Its purpose clearly violates the separation of powers between the two houses of congress. Who knows what this "Super Committee" could morph into. Any "controversial" legislation stalled in congress could be subject to the bicameral bipartisan "Super Committee".

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-sou...uper-congress/

I agree that having a Super Committee is Constitutionally treading on thin ice.

With regards to the House being responsible for originating all revenue generating bills:
1. If the 6 House of Representatives Super Committee members bring the issue of revenue generation to the Committee to discuss, does this qualify as "originating in the House"?
2. Maybe the Repubs made a brilliant move to take tax increases off the table by agreeing to having the Super Committee because they knew going in that the Committee would be limited to only budget cuts PRECISELY because the Constitution says revenue generating bills can only start in the House?

[docthehun]

The damn can is flat. Quit trying to kick it down the road. My idea, while tongue and cheek, would result in 12 moderates on the committee and they might actually get something done. I sure wish I could afford five weeks of vacation. Like many Americans, I'm just trying to keep my head above water. It sure would be refreshing to hear someone from Washington stand up and take responsibilty for this mess. Think I'm aggravated? Ask the little gal from the RNC who had the misfortune of trying to squeeze more cash out of me.

[SBFAMILY]

It is a joke. They were told to cut 4 trillion or else! AA bond rating is just around the corner. They ( both sides) are more interested in getting elected . Here is an idea they don't get paid till they get the job done! I'm not for higher taxes, but a 1% national sales tax that taxes consumption from those that don't pay taxes. ( Drug Dealers and others), sure would go a long way in fixing this mess.

[wisdome]

Originally Posted by SBFAMILY

It is a joke. They were told to cut 4 trillion or else! AA bond rating is just around the corner. They ( both sides) are more interested in getting elected . Here is an idea they don't get paid till they get the job done! I'm not for higher taxes, but a 1% national sales tax that taxes consumption from those that don't pay taxes. ( Drug Dealers and others), sure would go a long way in fixing this mess.

If you would do that the Demos will be losing a lot of revenue for the next elections. Why do you think they fight it with such passion!

[SBFAMILY]

Yes they don't want a flat tax for that reason. The power to tax is the power to buy votes. We need tax reform. Really bad with those with a degree can't do your own taxes in the country. It is a way to buy loop holes and not to pay . It favors those with money and hurts those that can't afford it. Dow is down today -334 points they really liked the new budget agreement!

[wisdome]

Originally Posted by SBFAMILY

Yes they don't want a flat tax for that reason. The power to tax is the power to buy votes. We need tax reform. Really bad with those with a degree can't do your own taxes in the country. It is a way to buy loop holes and not to pay . It favors those with money and hurts those that can't afford it. Dow is down today -334 points they really liked the new budget agreement!

Change we can believe!

[NapRover]

I really don't expect them to agree on anything. And if they do, and BHO doesn't like it, he'll ignore it like he did his last bipartisan budget-study group.
http://www.letterfromthecapitol.com/...ebt-panel.html

[bethere]

Originally Posted by NapRover

I really don't expect them to agree on anything. And if they do, and BHO doesn't like it, he'll ignore it like he did his last bipartisan budget-study group.
http://www.letterfromthecapitol.com/...ebt-panel.html

he can't ignore it. the law is already passed and signed.

1. if they can't reach agreement in committee then the triggers will go into effect--PERIOD. without filibusters, grandstanding, posing, and most certainly without signatures.

2. if they agree in committee and the potus does not? the triggers take effect.

it looks to me as if--JUST BEFORE RUNNING YOUR VICTORY LAPS--y'all just voted for MASSIVE CUTS IN THE DEFENSE BUDGET ALL WHILE SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, HEALTH CARE REFORM AND MEDICAID REMAIN OFF THE TABLE.

lol.

obama ate your lunch.

[toledomansfield]

half the cuts come from defense, the other half come from medicare.

[majorspark]

Originally Posted by tomindayton

With regards to the House being responsible for originating all revenue generating bills:
1. If the 6 House of Representatives Super Committee members bring the issue of revenue generation to the Committee to discuss, does this qualify as "originating in the House"?

No. This is not a House body. It is 50% Senate. It would not be any different than half a dozen House members running over to the Senate and having them sponsor a revenue generating bill and claiming it "originated" in the House.

Originating in the house as the framers intended meant any revenue generating legislation would pass the full house under its rules with a majority of its 435 members. The originating legislation would be would be a full bill solely the work of the House.

Then sent to the Senate where it would be passed, rejected, or amended. If amended then it goes to a joint conference committee where differences are reconciled. If revenue generation comes out of this "Super Committee" no house member can offer an amendment on the bill and it is final when it leaves the committee. You vote yes or no. This "Super Committee" clearly puts the cart before the horse. Its a clear violation of the constitution.

Originally Posted by tomindayton

2. Maybe the Repubs made a brilliant move to take tax increases off the table by agreeing to having the Super Committee because they knew going in that the Committee would be limited to only budget cuts PRECISELY because the Constitution says revenue generating bills can only start in the House?

The Republicans are not that brilliant. Nor do they possess the solid pair needed to stand up to the democrats when they bring revenue generating legislation into this committee. Which they will.

White house press secretary Jay Carney made no bones about it.

MR. CARNEY: Well, I’ve seen that and I would simply say that the suggestion that it is impossible for the joint committee to raise tax revenue is simply not accurate

if Congress does not act on tax reform, which, by the way, broadly speaking, is supported by both parties, a desire for tax reform -- so there is great incentive created in this committee to deal with tax reform

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...-carney-812011

[Duck Snort]

Originally Posted by docthehun

After a well deserved break, 6 members from each party will get all of this sorted out....again. I say we let each party choose the opposition's 6 representatives. Boy would that be a change to Washington's, "business as usual" program. :)

Other than the "well deserved break" part, I agree with your thinking. With each side picking the other's "weak links", I think they would be surprised how much middle ground they find.

[NapRover]

Originally Posted by bethere

he can't ignore it. the law is already passed and signed.

1. if they can't reach agreement in committee then the triggers will go into effect--PERIOD. without filibusters, grandstanding, posing, and most certainly without signatures.

2. if they agree in committee and the potus does not? the triggers take effect.

it looks to me as if--JUST BEFORE RUNNING YOUR VICTORY LAPS--y'all just voted for MASSIVE CUTS IN THE DEFENSE BUDGET ALL WHILE SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, HEALTH CARE REFORM AND MEDICAID REMAIN OFF THE TABLE.

lol.

obama ate your lunch.

We'll fix it after BHO's title gets cut from POTUS to ex-POTUS. He'll still be eating other people's lunches, because he's opposed to the concept of working for his own.

[fballnut]

Originally Posted by tomindayton

I agree that having a Super Committee is Constitutionally treading on thin ice.

With regards to the House being responsible for originating all revenue generating bills:
1. If the 6 House of Representatives Super Committee members bring the issue of revenue generation to the Committee to discuss, does this qualify as "originating in the House"?
2. Maybe the Repubs made a brilliant move to take tax increases off the table by agreeing to having the Super Committee because they knew going in that the Committee would be limited to only budget cuts PRECISELY because the Constitution says revenue generating bills can only start in the House?

The Constitution? Since when has that been relevant to what DC politicians do?

[docthehun]

Well, this certainly was a Fn' waste of time and money. Only in Washington could you get paid big bucks to accomplish absolutely nothing. We should of put 12 third graders together and promised them an extra recess and ice cream if they worked it out. All those yahoos in Washington are right about one thing. When they blame each other for our country's woes, they're both right! :)