To those who say the "deal" doesn't include cuts to entitlements

[librechik]

The committee of twelve is designed to evaluate entitlements and all other programs in discretionary for cuts. And its decisions MUST be enacted, according to the current deal. The committee of twelve will become a reality of this deal is passed.

Isn't it CERTAIN that the committee will recommend cuts and almost a certainty that they will be enacted? if not, why not?

[jtown1123]

1. THe Committee will propose entitlement cuts. Esp. since they will work from Catfood Comm. & Gang of

6 frameworks.

[dmallind]

2. Must be ENACTED? BULLSHIT. Must be voted upon. nt

[librechik]

4. I thought there was some form of coercion involved w their recommendations

a bit more than garanteed a floor vote if that's what you mean

[Atman]

8. You are more correct than dmalind.

If the Power Rangers cuts aren't passed by Congress, then draconian across-the-board cuts to everything take place. It's a win-win for the GOP...they get to seed the committee with no-compromise Tea Baggers, and even if they do nothing, everything gets cut drastically. Which, quite frankly, I would assume they'd LOVE.

.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Nonsense

The triggers are far more detrimental to the GOP. They are massively weighed toward defense. The GOP will not want these cuts, and will vote for revenue increases to avoid them. Bank that.

[jtown1123]

13. Revenue increases in exchange for SS and Medicare cuts?

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. The current structure of the triggers actually protects SS and Medicare

The Dems can choose between the across the board cuts (including provider side on Medicare) or cuts coming out of the Joint Committee. In othert words, they can say that they would prefer the across the board cuts to SS, Medicaid, and Medicare cuts (though, obviously, the provider side cuts to Medicare are undesirable). Indeed, the structure of the triggers is such to make the trigger more desirable than SS cuts, for instance. Why would you wall off SS on the back (trigger) end if you were going to cut it on the front (proposal) end? Answer: you wouldn't. because there are no negative consequences for SS if the Joint Committee recommendation is rejected, it makes nit easy for both the Dem members of the Joint Committee and Dem Congresspersons in general to reject any such recommendation. The explicit structure protects Social Security.

[librechik]

27. I don't think they're protected when they are 12% of the budget, yet get 50% of the cuts.

more or less

The trigger is the coercion, and it's under the finger of the conservatives.

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. 50% for non-defense programs, not SS and Medicaid

Indeed, SS and Medicaid are expressly walled off from the trigger.

[librechik]

32. I'd like a little bit more of a guarantee on that

becasue I remember the Catfood commission and they were
walled off" from SS too, and that did not stop them from considering it anyway. These people do not respect boundaries, and they will do ANYTHING to get what they want. And they want SS and Medicaid and Medicare gone. They also want all the people those programs apply to gone also.

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. Do you understand the difference between the recommendation and the triggers?

The triggers happen if the recommendations don't reach 1.2 trillion. The current bill expressly exempts Social Security and Medicaid (and other programs) from being part of the triggers. Yes, of course the Joint Committee can recommend cuts in this programs, but because the triggers are so heavily weighted toward GOP-valued programs, the Dems have absolutely no incentive to select the recommendations (or even make recommendations, since you need a majority of the Joint Committee) over the triggers.

[librechik]

50. I just see the possibility for abuse--I seriously can't see an advantage

which outweighs that for me.

[alcibiades_mystery]

54. I'm talking about the structrures built into the mechanisms

I suppose we could dream up possibilities all day.

[Hello World]

15. I noticed you are often wrong

but very predictable

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. Oh really?

Welcome to DU.

Thanks for your substantive and example filled post. I'm thrilled you joined my fan club at such an early date in your membership. I'll put you on the newsletter mailing list.

:rofl:

[jberryhill]

21. Signed up two days ago, just to comment on how "often" that happens didja?

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. Hey, be nice to my new friend!

:-)

[jberryhill]

56. And you... About those friends you've been dragging home with you...

[Atman]

31. Bank it? Seriously? They took the Norquist Pledge.

They'll get hammered come re-election time if they defy their pledge to Sir Lord King Highness The Grover. "Read my lips." They're all pussies. They will not betray their pledge. No way, no how. The bill, as I understand, is written so that if the Super Duper Power Rangers Committee doesn't gut everything Americans hold dear, then across-the-board cuts will take place automatically. This is a dream come true for the GOP. Sure, defense will get cut. But a stupid Freshman Tea Bagger can explain that away..."Well, the wars are winding down. Don't need to spend as much." They WIN that argument. Meanwhile, the real programs that help Americans in need will get slashed by the same percentages as the military cuts. It won't hurt the military in the slightest (except for the low-end contractors who don't have sufficient leverage in Congress), but the people who rely on Govt assistance will be devastated.

.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. We shall see by December 23

who was right.

Bookmark this thread.

:hi:

[librechik]

42. absolutely right, sadly

[SusanaMontana41]

57. That would make sense if 'baggers were reasonable. They're not.

Negotiating with them is like expecting a drunk to pass a driving test. Not gonna happen.

And "negotiation" implies compromise. Exactly what did the 'baggers give up in this deal? I can't find a thing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. Who said anything about negotiation?

:shrug:

Not me. I'm talking about triggers that force them to act, not negotiation.

[Bandit]

44. What Obama said about that

That's why the second part of this agreement is so important. It establishes a bipartisan committee of Congress to report back by November with a proposal to further reduce the deficit, which will then be put before the entire Congress for an up or down vote. In this stage, everything will be on the table. To hold us all accountable for making these reforms, tough cuts that both parties would find objectionable would automatically go into effect if we don’t act.

[Riftaxe]

47. Without the chance of either house

to enact amendments or changes is how i understand it. If this is true, it will be amazing how it could possibly pass constitutional muster.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UrbScotty]

5. You think that will happen? The committee will have to make cuts to defense

...and I just can't see Republicans letting that happen.

[jtown1123]

6. Why will they have to make cuts to defense?

[UrbScotty]

19. That's what the proposal stipulates.

[librechik]

7. ithink the military is already cut as much as they can this round (3% for each of 10 years)

so they can concentrate on killing off programs which help minorities and women.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Absolutely false

The Joint Committee's recommendations do not have to be enacted. They have to be voted on. They can be voted down in both the House and Senate, and they can be vetoed by the President, like any other bill.

It is a good bet that they will recommend cuts. It is not necessary that they will recommend cuts to SS, Medicaid, and Medicare. It is also a good bet that they will recommend revenues, since there are six Democrats on the committee.

It is not at all a certainty that the recommendations will be enacted. The Congress can opt for the triggers instead, which will be across the board cuts, taken equally from defense (50%) and other programs (50%). Social Security and Medicaid are walled off from those trigger cuts.

EDIT: In fact, they don't even have to be voted on: they can be killed in committee.

[JoePhilly]

14. +100 ... the OP is simply wrong.

[Hello World]

16. gotta link? Doesn't sound like any of the reports in the media

thanks

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. Here ya go, new friend

Link to a full text of the current bill:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/01/us/politics/debt-ceiling-bill-text.html?hp

Here's my original post with the Sections of the bill corresponding to each of my claims highlighted in bold.


-------------------------------------------------

The Joint Committee's recommendations do not have to be enacted. They have to be voted on (Section 402(b)(4) mentions the vote for passage in the House; Section 402(c)(5) identifies the vote in the Senate) ) . They can be voted down in both the House and Senate, and they can be vetoed by the President, like any other bill (Section 402(f)(3) identifies the procedure "if the President vetoes the joint committee bill" ).

It is a good bet that they will recommend cuts. It is not necessary that they will recommend cuts to SS, Medicaid, and Medicare. It is also a good bet that they will recommend revenues, since there are six Democrats on the committee.

It is not at all a certainty that the recommendations will be enacted. The Congress can opt for the triggers instead, which will be across the board cuts, taken equally from defense (50%) and other programs (50%). Social Security and Medicaid are walled off from those trigger cuts.

EDIT: In fact, they don't even have to be voted on: they can be killed in committee. (Section 402(b)(1) Indicates that the Recommendations will first go to Committee in the House; Section 402(c)(1) indicates that committees in the Senate can send report the bill with "an unfavorable recommendation"))

------------------------------------------------

[Hello World]

36. thank you - I will add the link to the PDF too

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/228727/debt-bill.pdf

wish this was on a gov site though to have more confidence in it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. Yeah, the NY Times just made it up

:rofl:

Here's the PDF on the House of Representatives server:

http://rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/Floor_Text/DEBT_016_xml.pdf

:eyes:

[JoePhilly]

24. Here ...

But first, when did we start to believe the media? Never mind.

Here are the full details.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people

And, this is the key section for your question ...

"Bipartisan committee process tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, including from entitlement and tax reform. Committee is required to report legislation by November 23, 2011, which receives fast-track protections. Congress is required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011."

They are required to VOTE on it, not PASS it, not ENACT it ... no such language in the agreement.

And then, if the committee can't reach agreement ...

"Consistent With Past Practice, Sequester Would Be Divided Equally Between Defense and Non-Defense Programs and Exempt Social Security, Medicaid, and Low-Income Programs: Consistent with the bipartisan precedents established in the 1980s and 1990s, the sequester would be divided equally between defense and non-defense program, and it would exempt Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. Likewise, any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side."

[librechik]

25. Right, THAT"S the coercion I'm talking about!

Because the only ones hurt by across the board cuts are Dems and their constituencies, not Repubs. It's another hostage situation where the PuKKKEs get to rule. (disguised as "an up or down vote"_

Also, the Pentagon is about 70% of the budget, discretionary is only about 12%. Why do the cuts have to fall equally when their share is so lopsided? More hostage taking. This is bullshit.

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. Nope...the cuts in the trigger fall much more harshly on the GOP

[librechik]

40. disagree n/t

[Riftaxe]

48. voted with or without the Houses

ability to enact amendments? Does this "Committee" suborn and forfeit the constitutionally provided Congressional powers of the legislators?

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. No, the legislators suspend rules of their respective bodies by voting for the current bill

:shrug:

[Riftaxe]

64. And when one legislator petitions for a change in a bill

what will the courts decide? Up and down votes in theory are appealing, short circuiting constitutional protections can not end well.

[spanone]

10. not at the moment.

[JoePhilly]

12. Factually Wrong.

"Isn't it CERTAIN that the committee will recommend cuts and almost a certainty that they will be enacted? if not, why not? "

The only CERTAIN thing is that their recommendations get an UP OR DOWN vote. That's it.

They are not automatically enacted.

I am certain that it is sad to see a Democratic discussion board on which that basic fact seems to be a mystery for so many.

And past that, the President can VETO anything that passes ... again, which means that the claim that their recommendations "must be enacted", is false.

Its not certain. Not in any way. But why let that stop us from running in circles with our hair on fire.

[jberryhill]

20. No it does not require they be enacted

I would be in favor of means-testing social security and raising the income cap.

Whether the committee could come up with something that would be enacted is an open question.

And whether any of this would survive a change in control of the House is an open question.

The entire thing IMHO highlights the importance of getting the House back.

[Recursion]

26. It's not true that they "must" be enacted

If they aren't, they get 1.2 trillion in cuts vs. 1.5 trillion from the commission, half of which are from the Pentagon and none of which are from SS or Medicaid (and the Medicare cuts are provider reimbursement cuts, not direct subsidy cuts).

As Ezra Klein puts it:

The Joint Committee is charged with finding $1.5 trillion in savings over 10 years. The trigger would only cut $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The Joint Committee is likely to cut Social Security, Medicaid and a host of programs Democrats aren’t going to want to touch if taxes aren’t part of the deal. The trigger exempts Social Security and Medicaid, and $1 out of every $2 in cuts comes from the Pentagon. The Joint Committee is likely to cut a deal without revenue, and Democrats will have to explain to their base why they permitted, say, Medicare cuts while letting the GOP reject tax increases. The trigger lets Democrats blame Republicans for protecting the wealthy in the 2012 election.

There are, of course, good reasons to fear the spending trigger. In a deal, the cuts can be backloaded to give the economy more time to recover. Under the trigger, the cuts will begin immediately. In a deal, the cuts can be made with care, and many of them can be reforms rather than crude reductions in benefits or spending authority. Under a trigger, you trade the scalpel for a hatchet. In a deal, you might be able to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance. Outside of a deal, both will expire.

But these reasons only hold if Republicans are willing to cut a deal Democrats actually like. It’s a pretty good bet, however, that Republicans won’t want revenues in the final deal and won’t want the Pentagon to absorb half of the cuts. The extension of stimulus matters, but Democrats are going to have trouble trading $150 billion in tax cuts and unemployment benefits now for $1.5 trillion+ in spending cuts later. So unless Republicans are willing to give on some of their core demands or they’re willing to get creative and throw in a public option or something, it’s pretty easy to see how Democrats could decide the trigger is better politics and, at the least, equivalent policy.

[librechik]

29. The trigger mechanism is what I am talking about re coercion.

It's not a simple up or down vote. It's an up or down or else vote.

[Recursion]

34. Right, but it's "up or down or else slash the Pentagon but don't touch entitlements"

That's a gun to somebody's head, but that somebody is across the aisle from us.

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. Indeed

[librechik]

41. military gets slashed/ guns and deaths go down. Entitlements get slashed? Gramma eats catfood

I think I must agree to disagree here. The Pentagon can take a ton of slashing and not even feel it. When other things get slashed PEOPLE suffer. It's a different thing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. Social Security is explicitly exempted from the trigger

I'm not sure why you're not following this. The military cuts cannot be paired with cuts to entitlements in the TRIGGER, since cuts to entitlements are explicitly exempted from the trigger. The Joint Committee's recommendations could be completely rejected, and the military would see drastic cuts, while Social security is GUARANTEED no cuts.

Let me say this as clearly as possible for you: If the Joint Committee's recommendations do not pass, there are ZERO cuts to Social Security as a consequence.

You can bob and weave and spin all you want, but that's explicit.

[librechik]

45. al, I just don't believe those fuckers would do the right thing, that's why

sure they're supposed to not touch them, but that has never stopped them from trying and our Dems are so weak, they could wind up screwing up everything. I don't even know how they would do it, but they are unconscionable and so I believe they would, despite their mandate--

Oh, I remember why--the Alan Simpson committee was specifically directed to NOT look at social security and entitlements but somehow they wound up being a major part of the plan anyway. I don't trust them.

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. You are confusing the Recommendations and the Triggers

The Triggers are SET IN STONE upon passage of the bill: they explicitly exempt Social Security.

The Joint Committee can surely recommend cuts to Social Security - even massive cuts. But the six Dems on the Committee can block those cuts, and they have every incentive to do so, since no harm will come to Social Security if they do block such cuts. Even if cuts to Social Security get through the Joint Committee, moreover, the Dems in the Democratic-controlled Senate can block those cuts, and they have every incentive to do so, since no harm will come to Social Security if they do block such cuts. Finally, even if the Dems in the Joint Committee and the Dems in the Senate allow cuts to Social Security, the President can veto those cuts, and he has every incentive to do so, since no harm will come to Social Security if he does block such cuts.

[librechik]

49. very interesting, but I am not reassured--these remedies all depend on honest brokers

in several different levels of check, and I haven't seen that lately in govt.

[alcibiades_mystery]

52. Passing cuts to Social Security requires at least one Dem on the Joint Committee

(all six are chosen by Reid and Pelosi).

It then requires passage by the full House, then passage by the full Senate. The Democratically-controlled Senate.

Then, sign-off by the President.

And the consequence for nixing it at any level here? No cuts to Social Security, mostly cuts to military and defense.

Because the GOP desperately wants to avoid the trigger, and the Dems have just a small downside on it, it's furthermore unlikely that the Joint Committee will even recommend cuts to Social Security, since to do so would almost guarantee failure of the Joint Committee bill in the Senate, and therefore the triggering of the drastic cuts to Defense. So, not only does the structure disincentivize the Dems from ACCEPTING SS cuts, it actually incentivizes the GOP members of the Joint Committee NOT TO PROPOSE ANY.

The Joint Committee structure is actually a pretty big win for us.

[jeff47]

51. You're not quite right about entitlements

While they are trying to soften the blow on the Medicare cuts by claiming they're "provider side", those cuts will harm seniors. Their doctor stops seeing them/demands higher out-of-pocket, or the nursing home decides it's not profitable and closes are two examples.

[Recursion]

55. We can't let providers dictate prices forever.

Provider cuts are one of the selling points of single payer, remember?

[TheKentuckian]

59. Single payer essentially means take the rate, shut the doors, or live off the few ca$h

customers that don't want to use the system for whatever reason.

Cutting rates (in rural areas they may already be below cost) means people don't get seen, they cut the losses and go after the insurance dollars. In the current environment, folks can be and already are turned away.

What is your mechanism to make sure seniors have access and get care when you are making providers either take a loss or break even when they could just take profitable customers instead?

[Recursion]

60. Mandates

Tell them it's less money or nothing. The private market for nursing home care is roughly 0.

[jeff47]

61. And when they take the 2nd option?

It's not like a business must stay in business.

[TheKentuckian]

63. That doesn't address medical.

Also, if the choice isn't a profit then they close shop. Problem exacerbated not solved.

[Recursion]

65. If we can't afford nursing homes then we can't afford them

It doesn't matter whether we bankrupt the government or each of us individually, if we can't afford nursing home care one way or another they're going to shut down.

[jeff47]

62. Doesn't change the fact that "provider-side" cuts will harm seniors as much as benefit cuts. (nt)

[treestar]

30. People have such a hard time admitting they were wrong

That they will twist anything so as to have made themselves right.