Is the super committee President Obama's revenge?
After last summer's showdown over raising the debt ceiling, Obama was roundly criticized for agreeing to a deficit-reduction deal that was all spending cuts and no tax hikes. Democrats, disconsolate over this seeming capitulation to House Republicans, saw it as the low-water mark of his presidency.
Yet the deal also created the bipartisan super committee, which was charged with finding at least $1.2 trillion (over 10 years) in additional cuts by Nov. 23. The super committee has a strong incentive to succeed, since its failure will trigger an automatic, equivalent cut in domestic and defense spending.
Now, as the super committee spars over dueling Democratic and Republican plans for meeting the target, Republicans are on the hot seat.
Democrats last week reportedly proposed a $3 trillion package over the next decade, including $1.2 trillion in revenue increases. Republicans came back with a smaller counter offer of $2.2 trillion. The reason, of course, is that the GOP's anti-tax fanaticism prevents it from matching the Democrats' debt-reduction plan without proposing truly punishing cuts in federal spending.
The Republicans claim their package includes revenues ($640 billion worth) but much of it seems to come not from actual changes in the tax code, but from increased fees and co-pays in Medicare. The rest is supply side fairy dust -- around $200 billion from the higher growth supposed to be generated by future tax reform.
The upshot is that Democrats now look like they are more serious about getting the nation's debt under control, and in a way that spreads the pain of fiscal retrenchment more equitably. Republicans look like their top priority isn't restoring fiscal discipline, but shielding the wealthy from higher taxes.
If they refuse to deal on taxes, they'll likely be blamed for the super committee's failure and subsequent trigger of automatic spending cuts. The GOP may not care about slashing domestic spending -- even though it includes critical public investments in science and technology, infrastructure and education -- but they do care about defense spending, which would take a whopping, half-trillion-dollar hit.
Of course, Republicans could offer a minimum bid of $1.2 trillion in spending cuts to avoid across-the-board cuts, and call it a day. Super committee Democrats, however, shouldn't let them off the hook without substantial concessions on taxes. Democrats don't want to trigger big domestic and defense spending cuts either, but it's better to force the issue of GOP intransigence on taxes now than during the debt ceiling debate, when America stood on the brink of default.
Even if the super committee does its job and approves a bipartisan debt reduction plan by Thanksgiving, it's by no means clear that Congress will pass it. Members of Congress hate nothing more than being "shut out of the process," and many bridle at the idea of delegating power to 12 super committee members to craft a massive plan and present it for an up or down vote.
Complaining that he has "no stake" in the outcome, Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman added, "I find it an outrageous process, that 12 people could rewrite the laws of the United States and come up with ideas just sitting there and getting into some mood that might influence them at the moment."
Over on the right, there's little love for the super committee. Nothing is more predictable than that Tea Party zealots will rise in righteous condemnation of any plan that includes higher tax revenues, thus breaking the party of Lincoln's solemn covenant with anti-tax gadfly Grover Norquist.
More favorable are congressional moderates, whose main concern is that the super committee won't go far enough. Nearly 100 Members from both parties signed a letter urging the super committee to cut $4 trillion over the next decade, the amount most budget experts believe is necessary to stabilize the debt. For pain-averse lawmakers, the logic of "going big" and not having to keep repeating these excruciating political battles over spending and taxes is pretty compelling.
If the super committee fails, the economic and political consequences won't be pretty. Fresh evidence that the nation's political leaders are incapable of coming to grips with the debt crisis will no doubt cause the markets to nosedive, and could even lead ratings agencies like Standard & Poor to downgrade the nation's credit again. This could cast a pall over the economy, just as it's finally showing some signs of life.
Worst of all, it would deepen the public's already explosive anger at Washington. A mere 9 percent of the voters approve of the job Congress is doing, and 89 percent say they don't trust the government to do the right thing. By going big on debt reduction, Congress could start earning back that trust.