Undercutting the power of the Super-Committee

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hortysir, Sep 17, 2012.

  1. hortysir
    Offline

    hortysir In Memorial of 47

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    20,459
    Thanks Received:
    4,027
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Lakeland, FL
    Ratings:
    +6,296
    As part of our austerity measures, for lack of a more political-correct term, we tasked a Super-Committee of 12 with the job of putting our financial affairs in order.
    As such, certain cuts were set to automatically take effect.

    Have I got it right so far?

    Close enough, anyway???


    Then, why this:
    Congress.org – Get informed, get involved
    Sequestration Replacement - Vote Passed (223-196, 10 Not Voting)

    There is increasing concern in Congress over the looming "sequester," or automatic spending cuts, slated to begin on January 2, 2013. These cuts were triggered after the so-called "supercommittee" created by last year's debt-ceiling deal failed to find $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. Republicans have expressed particular concern over the cuts to defense spending, which would amount to roughly $500 billion over 10 years without changes to current law. H.R. 6365, the National Security and Job Protection Act, represents the second attempt by the House to replace the sequester. (The first sequester replacement bill, H.R. 5652, Roll Call 247, was passed in May.) The bill instructs President Obama to submit to Congress by October 15 a plan to replace all discretionary and mandatory defense spending cuts (but not domestic mandatory cuts to programs such as Medicare) scheduled to occur next year. Such a plan could not include any revenue increases. Upon enactment of the replacement cuts, the overall level of authorized spending for FY 2013 would be reduced by $19 billion, which would bring the total amount in line with the House Republican budget resolution passed in April. Finally, the bill would eliminate the separate caps on defense and non-defense spending for subsequent years of the sequester, potentially allowing increases in defense spending even as the rest of the budget is reduced. The president has threatened to veto the bill, though it will likely not be brought up in the Senate anyway.

    :eusa_eh:
     

Share This Page