Not So Super

Late last week, it started to become evident that the Joint Select Committee, better known at the Super Committee, had reached an impasse. On Monday, it was official: there would be no deficit reduction deal for the Super Committee to vote on and pass along to the House and Senate.

I’m extremely disappointed that we will not be able to vote on a package to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over the next ten years. There are a number of reasons why the Super Committee could not accomplish its task.

The finger pointing began long before the Super Committee missed its deadline. Both sides blame each other for being unwilling to compromise.

I believe Republicans should get credit for risking the anger of anti-tax lobbyists. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) proposed a tax reform that would have eliminated loopholes and special interest tax credits. Some of the increased revenue from these changes would have been used to lower tax rates. However, $250 billion in this increased revenue would have been used to reduce the deficit.

This was a risky proposal for Sen. Toomey. Indeed, many conservative groups labeled this a tax increase and indicated that they would oppose any deal that included increased revenue. Even if this proposal were included in a Super Committee deal, it may not have been able to pass the House or Senate.

Instead of recognizing that Sen. Toomey was already going out on a limb, Super Committee Democrats insisted that tax rates should be raised and revenue increased by more than $1 trillion.

Casting blame is easy. Determining which party is more responsible for the failure is difficult. While the Super Committee failed to lead, the division between the members reflects a nation that is deeply divided over the issues of taxes and spending.

A recent Gallup poll showed that Republicans overwhelmingly support spending reductions as the best way to reduce the deficit. Democrats overwhelmingly support tax increases to reduce debt. Independents favor a mix of both.

Right now, Republicans are in charge of the House. Almost every Republican ran on the promise to oppose increased tax rates. The Democrats are in charge of the Senate and most of their members promised to fight any major changes to entitlement programs. In fact, many of them ran on a platform of increasing government spending. Each member is accountable to the voters who elected them. Each member would face defeat if they broke a campaign promise.

So what will happen between now and the next election? The Super Committee may have failed to come up with a new plan for deficit reduction, but reduced spending has already been agreed to. The Budget Control Act, which created the Super Committee, called for a fallback plan: $1.2 trillion in across the board spending cuts over ten years.

Half of these cuts will come from security spending—defense, intelligence, and homeland security—and half will come from domestic spending programs. Starting next year, there will be hard spending caps that the Congressional appropriations committees must abide by.

I’m concerned that these cuts could reduce the ability of our military to defend our nation. If these cuts are maintained over the planned ten years, we would be left with our smallest land forces since World War II and our smallest navy since World War I. In a world with so many threats, it would place American lives at risk to have such a greatly reduced military.

I don’t believe that this threat means that we need to just eliminate the cuts. These cuts were passed because our debt is a threat to our economic security. Our enormous debt threatens every government function: from health to agriculture to defense.

Over the next year, we will have a robust debate over the best way to balance our budget. Republicans and Democrats will present different solutions and the American people will decide between them at the ballot box. We don’t need to wait until then to find areas of agreement. We should work together where we can. However, the American people will have to speak clearly next November so that elected leaders can make the big changes that will be necessary to preserve our nation.