On The Clock -- A Capitol Hill Update
By Cian Cashin
Four weeks from today, the “Super Committee” is expected to present its recommendations on how to come up with $1.2 trillion in federal government savings. While much of their work has been being conducted behind closed doors for the past few weeks, there have been rumors that all has not gone exactly smoothly for the Committee. While the Committee held its fourth public hearing this week and publicly indicated that work was progressing well, many are stating that there have been increasingly divisive disagreements as the Committee solidifies their proposals. And while all of this is extremely hypothetical given their propensity for working behind closed doors of late, many analysts agree on a few important points. The first is that there are conflicting views on the level of spending the Super Committee will propose. Some have indicated that their initial proposal will be to extend beyond their purview and provide for $3 trillion in saving over the next decade. Others believe the timeframe for coming up with such consensus limits their ability to draw consensus and they will essentially be forced into specific cuts more aligned with their initial charge of $1.2 trillion. Also complicating progress is the fact that there had been talk of including a “jobs” component to the recommendations. This has largely been done away with as any incorporated addition would necessitate even greater offsets to be discussed and agreed to by the Committee. Finally, the Super Committee has precluded any discussion on a wholesale revision to the tax code as a way to realize savings and adjustments. Although many of the Presidential hopefuls have issued plans indicating their own hopes that this will serve as a panacea for the nation’s economic woes, the Super Committee has likely run out of time for consideration and specific analysis of the proposals on a large scale. That being said, it is also rumored that they will make specific recommendations on options for tax reform and direct the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committees to draft the details on accomplishing reform on specific tax policies with notation on how the examples could assist economic adjustments. With time quickly expiring on their commission, the committee will certainly have their hands full in the coming weeks.
Senate Democrats this week have indicated that they will turn their attempts at clearing portions of the President’s jobs proposal towards transportation initiatives in the coming weeks. Knowing that they will face increasing obstacles from their House counterparts as the election approaches, the Senate Democrats are instead focusing their efforts on those aspects of the President’s jobs plans that are broadly popular and seemingly practical. Transportation remains one of those. Separating these aspects out from the broader jobs proposal and requesting individual votes on the issue will not only increase its chances for passage, but will also put politicians on record against topical issues that received positive public support. The bill is largely tied to rebuilding and repairing the nation’s crumbling infrastructure and may serve as a way for the Senate Democrats to pit the Republican theories about simultaneously supporting the effort to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure against their reluctance to raise new revenue or taxes. The proposal intends to offset associated costs by an increase on those whose income exceeds $1 million. The bill will likely face strong opposition in both chambers as it has been compared to an earlier bill that was part of the President’s jobs proposals that would have saved teacher, police, firefighter and emergency responder jobs (which was refuted by a 50-50 vote).
In a largely symbolic move, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has indicated it will address its two-year surface transportation measure, MAP-21, November 9th. While that markup may be scheduled, the Senate and House proposals are light years apart in every aspect. The legislation is likely to serve as the legislative equivalent of someone shrugging their shoulders and saying, “we tried.” It may also serve as election fodder for finger pointing between the leadership of the two chambers.
Four weeks from today, the “Super Committee” is expected to present its recommendations on how to come up with $1.2 trillion in federal government savings. While much of their work has been being conducted behind closed doors for the past few weeks, there have been rumors that all has not gone exactly smoothly for the Committee. While the Committee held its fourth public hearing this week and publicly indicated that work was progressing well, many are stating that there have been increasingly divisive disagreements as the Committee solidifies their proposals. And while all of this is extremely hypothetical given their propensity for working behind closed doors of late, many analysts agree on a few important points. The first is that there are conflicting views on the level of spending the Super Committee will propose. Some have indicated that their initial proposal will be to extend beyond their purview and provide for $3 trillion in saving over the next decade. Others believe the timeframe for coming up with such consensus limits their ability to draw consensus and they will essentially be forced into specific cuts more aligned with their initial charge of $1.2 trillion. Also complicating progress is the fact that there had been talk of including a “jobs” component to the recommendations. This has largely been done away with as any incorporated addition would necessitate even greater offsets to be discussed and agreed to by the Committee. Finally, the Super Committee has precluded any discussion on a wholesale revision to the tax code as a way to realize savings and adjustments. Although many of the Presidential hopefuls have issued plans indicating their own hopes that this will serve as a panacea for the nation’s economic woes, the Super Committee has likely run out of time for consideration and specific analysis of the proposals on a large scale. That being said, it is also rumored that they will make specific recommendations on options for tax reform and direct the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committees to draft the details on accomplishing reform on specific tax policies with notation on how the examples could assist economic adjustments. With time quickly expiring on their commission, the committee will certainly have their hands full in the coming weeks.
Senate Democrats this week have indicated that they will turn their attempts at clearing portions of the President’s jobs proposal towards transportation initiatives in the coming weeks. Knowing that they will face increasing obstacles from their House counterparts as the election approaches, the Senate Democrats are instead focusing their efforts on those aspects of the President’s jobs plans that are broadly popular and seemingly practical. Transportation remains one of those. Separating these aspects out from the broader jobs proposal and requesting individual votes on the issue will not only increase its chances for passage, but will also put politicians on record against topical issues that received positive public support. The bill is largely tied to rebuilding and repairing the nation’s crumbling infrastructure and may serve as a way for the Senate Democrats to pit the Republican theories about simultaneously supporting the effort to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure against their reluctance to raise new revenue or taxes. The proposal intends to offset associated costs by an increase on those whose income exceeds $1 million. The bill will likely face strong opposition in both chambers as it has been compared to an earlier bill that was part of the President’s jobs proposals that would have saved teacher, police, firefighter and emergency responder jobs (which was refuted by a 50-50 vote).
In a largely symbolic move, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has indicated it will address its two-year surface transportation measure, MAP-21, November 9th. While that markup may be scheduled, the Senate and House proposals are light years apart in every aspect. The legislation is likely to serve as the legislative equivalent of someone shrugging their shoulders and saying, “we tried.” It may also serve as election fodder for finger pointing between the leadership of the two chambers.
Comments