- MENU
- HOME
- SEARCH
- WORLD
- MAIN
- AFRICA
- ASIA
- BALKANS
- EUROPE
- LATIN AMERICA
- MIDDLE EAST
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Argentina
- Australia
- Austria
- Benelux
- Brazil
- Canada
- China
- France
- Germany
- Greece
- Hungary
- India
- Indonesia
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Japan
- Korea
- Mexico
- New Zealand
- Pakistan
- Philippines
- Poland
- Russia
- South Africa
- Spain
- Taiwan
- Turkey
- USA
- BUSINESS
- WEALTH
- STOCKS
- TECH
- HEALTH
- LIFESTYLE
- ENTERTAINMENT
- SPORTS
- RSS
- iHaveNet.com: Politics
by Bill Press
The only surprise about the failure of the
Let's be honest. The supercommittee was doomed from the start, and it was a mistake to create it in the first place. As Newt Gingrich correctly observed, in one of the few times he's been right about anything: "It's about as dumb an idea as
There are those, and I'm one of them, who question its very constitutionality. Where in the Constitution is
But even if it is constitutional, its prospects for success were nonexistent. The same resistance among Republicans to any increase in revenues existed long before the committee was formed, and weren't about to change because somebody shook pixie dust on the supercommittee.
In the wake of its demise, we hear three theories about the committee. All three of them are false. First is the contention that things would have turned out differently if only President Obama had taken part in the negotiations. Baloney. This was a congressional committee, created by special legislation with 12 members, six representatives and six senators, with a specific mission and a fixed deadline. There was no seat at the table for Obama or any other member of the administration. By law, deciding on a formula for cutting
Second theory: Republicans, led by Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey, abandoned their lock-jaw opposition to new taxes and offered a "good-faith" plan for revenue enhancement. More Baloney. Toomey's plan was nothing but a red herring. Sure, it would raise, over the next decade,
Third slice of baloney: Both parties share the blame for the supercommittee's failure. This is the greatest canard of all. There is only one party responsible for the failure of the supercommittee, and it's not the Democrats. Unlike Republicans, Democrats came to the supercommittee ready to deal. They put on the table almost
There's no doubt that tax breaks for the wealthy have contributed to our soaring debt. According to the
So why do Republicans resist what should so obviously be part of any balanced solution to balancing the budget? Because 279 members of
It's time somebody questioned the priorities of those 279 members of
Whom do they serve -- the American people or Grover Norquist?
By their unwillingness to compromise on revenue, it appears they value their loyalty to a powerful Washington lobbyist over what's best for the country, which violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the oath they have taken to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. The American people deserve much better.
AMERICAN POLITICS
WORLD | AFRICA | ASIA | EUROPE | LATIN AMERICA | MIDDLE EAST | UNITED STATES | ECONOMICS | EDUCATION | ENVIRONMENT | FOREIGN POLICY | POLITICS
Republicans Put Loyalty to Norquist Over Country | Politics
© Tribune Media Services