With Warner snub, “super committee” shows it’s hardly super
By Norman Leahy | Wednesday, August 10th, 2011 | Policy, Politics, VirginiaSenator Mark Warner had some small hope of being named to the congressional “super committee” that is supposed to pour over the federal budget and find hundreds of billions of dollars worth of additional savings (or taxes increases, or both) in order to avoid across the board cuts. Those automatic cuts would result in a $600 billion hit to defense spending which could throttle Virginia’s defense-spending dependent economy.
Before Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made his “super committee” picks, Warner characterized his chances of being picked, and the committee’s likely Democratic make-up, this way:
…he doesn’t see much chance of winning one of the three Senate Democratic seats — because he wants to tackle entitlement reform and tax reform on a much broader scope than is envisioned by the new committee.
“The fact that I’m willing to do that probably means that I’m not actually going to get on the committee,” Warner said on Fox News. “I don’t actually expect to get on the committee. … I also know that chances are that there will be enormous pressure on leadership in both parties to put members that might not be willing to be as bold.”
As Ken Falkenstein notes, Mr.Warner was passed-over for membership on the committee in favor of the odious John Kerry, Democratic Senate campaign chair Patty Murray and Finance committee chair Max Baucus.
So give Warner the credit he’s due: he knew Reid would pick those who weren’t interested in sweeping entitlement reform. If anything, the Murray choice ensures just the opposite. In addition to her charge to look after Democrats’ electoral concerns, according to the Wall Street Journal, Murray is also “a vocal supporter of Social Security and Medicare.”
In that same Journal article, we learn more about why Warner was shut out of the committee — his involvement with the “Gang of Six” — and Harry Reid’s take on entitlements:
That group irked Mr. Reid by going its own way and trying to influence matters during the recent negotiations on the debt ceiling. In addition, those senators accepted cuts to Social Security at a time when Mr. Reid was strongly rejecting such cuts.
Hope, change…not on his watch.
It’s anyone’s guess who will be named to the other spots on the “super committee,” but the snubbing of Mark Warner has made a few things clear:
* Serious entitlement reform is off the table for Democrats.
* This and taxes will likely lead to no agreement, meaning the automatic cuts of the debt ceiling could be on their way. Buckle-up, Virginia, it’s about to get bumpy.
* Warner has been given an additional reason not to make the Senate a long-term career. Terry McAuliffe, you’d best call your office.
(Cross-posted at Score Radio Network)
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Norm Leahy has written about Virginia and national politics online since 2002, beginning with One Man's Trash (OMT), and continuing through Bacon's Rebellion (both the blog and the e-zine), Sic Semper Tyrannis, NBC12's Decision Virginia, Richmond.com and Tertium Quids. He is the chief blogger at "The Score" and a producer of "The Score" radio show as well as being a Washington Post contributor.
Comments
33 Responses to "With Warner snub, “super committee” shows it’s hardly super"
Warner wants entitlement reform except when he has a chance to vote for it. The Gang of Six wrote Nothing down. It was a Dem delaying tactic for the debt ceiling vote. Reid knew what they were doing every minute and was laughing up his sleeve that the Repubs took it seriously. Sen Warner voted for every Dem piece of toxic legislation and goes around talking out of both sides of his mouth. Warner had No interest in serving on the Committee particularly if he wants to run for Gov. Even without that he is concerned about 2014. Serving on the committee would be a loser or at least very risky. If Obama loses in 12, Warner will discover he really is a closet Republican.
But hats off to Bearing Drift for maintaining its Warner and Webb worship through good and bad times. The Republican Party always loves Dems who fake conservatism right before the election.
No taxation without representation.
I’d still prefer Warner on the committee as a Dem rep than Reid’s other picks. At least he has some business acumen.
I don’t think the choices mean serious entitlement reform is off the table at all. The three previous commissions have all recommended entitlement reform, and the President offered it as well, and Boehner was close to agreement until the Republican Study Committee yanked him back into line and he agreed with them to double down on cuts so he could keep his speakership. Frankly, I think Mark Warner will still have much influence as he has been acknowledged as a business and financial expert in the short time he has been in the Senate.
Interesting. To say that I “worship” Mr. Warner tells me someone is unfamiliar with my commentary on him since 2002.
That aside, it is true Warner is guilty of talking a good game, but then working to make matters worse. But as Senate Democrats go, Warner’s comments on entitlements make him a rarity. Having him on the committee would have introduced the possibility, however remote, that Democrats would at least consider some changes in entitlements. That is a genuine loss, just as it is to see that the House GOP didn’t put Paul Ryan on its committee roster.
So Norman, to “make matters worse”, is to focus on more cuts which clearly have already resulted, and will result, in the potential for recession, job loss, reduced growth in GDP, and further downgrades of U.S. Debt as it is clear to all but the most obstinate republicans that the only way to get serious debt and deficit reduction is to lower expenditures, increase revenues, reform entitlements and the tax code. Since when the grand old party become one characterized by obstinancy, denial, and failure to do what is right for America. Even your hero, Ronald Reagan, realized the necessity for increased revenues when the deficit got too high. So are you denying your heritage as well?
Warner made matters worse by voting for Obamacare.
And never presume to know my heroes. But I’ll give you a hint: I’m mighty partial to Barry Goldwater.
NL,
Sorry for the tweak. I should have put quotes around “worship”. But review the various posts on BD concerning Webb and Warner (of course most were not by you) and you may see my point.
I see Norman, so instead of responding on the issue of the economy and deficit relief, you change the subject to health care reform, which, by the way, has been scored by the CBO as a contributor to reducing the deficit. And I have to say that is the first time on this forum that I have seen anyone deprecate the reputation of President Ronald Reagan because he raised taxes and did what was right for America.
Reagan was screwed by the Democrats in their cuts for taxes “3 for 1″ big deal promise and George Bush 41 was ambushed by Democrats again when he tried to do a “2 for 1″ deal. Grover Norquist explains in the Feb. issue of the American Spectator:
“In 1982, Democrats talked Ronald Reagan into a bipartisan compromise to cut spending three dollars for every dollar of tax increases. Taxes were raised by a total of $215 billion in the following five years. According to the terms of the deal, spending should have been reduced by three times that much: $645 billion. Instead, adjusting for inflation, total spending rose by $177 billion more than it would have without the deficit reduction agreement. In other words, a promised cut of $647 billion turned into a spending hike of $177 billion. (Republicans then lost House seats in the fall election.)”
Grover goes on to describe what happened to 41:
“In 1990, Democrats lured George Herbert Walker Bush into an ambush at Andrews Air Force Base where he was promised two (not three) dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases he conceded (he was a cheaper date). Tax rates were hiked. Twenty-six different tax hikes were permanently imposed that increased taxes over the following five years by $137 billion. The Democrats’ promise would suggest spending cuts of $274 billion. Instead, spending rose $23 billion more than the projected baseline (and Bush won only 38 percent of the presidential vote two years later).”
Grover shows that Democrats have proven throughout modern history that they can’t be trusted and will lie, cheat, steal and stab a President in the back for political gain while they smile, kiss and promise anything relative to debt, spending and taxes to his face. The Tea Party has staked out positions that trace back to our individual values about our country, borrowing, paying people we owe, debt, loyalty, morality and civility. As students of recent history, they know that a “deal” with leftist Democrats and RINOs is a like making a pact with the Devil for the soul of our country.
Thank you Tim J for displaying the depths to which you and others will go to denigrate President Reagan. Of course, to do so, you must quote one of the most dastardly characters in american history, one co-conspirator with Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed in bilking charitable organizations who went to them for help of millions of dollars. And your condemnation of the majority of americans is so absurd as to be unworthy of comment. I trust that Brian Kirwin will leap into the fray to defend his hero, but of course, now that the republican talking points include condemning any past republican who raised taxes, maybe he has something in the closet as well.
Why bring Kirwin into this because you are on the losing side of the argument anyway? Brian would just embarrass you even more than I have.
You and the leftist Democrats are trying to destroy everything we are as a country with the only tool you have… lies. You lie about the Tea Party, you lie about yourselves to yourselves, you lie about yourselves to the country, you lie about our country to the world, you lie about taxes, you lie about debt, you lie about spending, you lie about Medicade, you lie about Social Security, you lie about Medicare, you lie about our economy, you lie about history, you lie about Republicans, you lie about Republican leaders, and the most famous quote by Congressman Wilson during the Obama speech to congress, “You Lie!” about health care. So in all of those lies, which lie do you want to defend first?
Go get some help.
Mike, I win, you lose… next…
TJ,
MB can cut and paste faster than you can write. BD has ignored my modest proposal to give MB his own reserved space on the site.
val, I have often suggested that Mike start his own blog instead of polluting BD with his leftist drivel.
valentinus and Tim J,
Despite my itchy trigger finger over the ban button when it comes to Mr. Barrett, he’s good at stirring up a conversation. So, I tolerate him. Besides, with every comment he makes, he exposes himself as the big government leftist that he is.
JR,
Respectfully, I don’t think he’s stirring up the conversation; he’s obliterating it. The one thing he does do is add to the length of posts if that is a good thing to BD. Usually his comments are off topic (hijack) or so vague that they could apply to any thread. In addition he almost never responds specifically to any question.
Besides I didn’t say to ban him just to provide him a parallel space, so to speak, on the site. But hey it’s not our site so don’t mind us.
Cut off Mike? He does provide opportunities to practice articulating your opposing view. And other readers.
My posts are often lengthy. I am very pro- Radtke, a Tea Partier, and a Libertarian. I guess I will be next?
Sometimes there are good reasons to ban. Being irritating isn’t a good reason to be banned. I don’t think censoring Mike would be sending a very good message.
Britt, in the old days, what did we used to do with a broken record?
Yes, I have certainly exposed the view that the current republican mantra, which of course, is diametrically opposite of the republican view of just a few years ago, has now resulted in significant loss of net worth for just about every american. The economy needs spending right now, not cuts. Coupled with that spending, we need an agreed upon plan to reduce expenditures, increase revenue, reform entitlements, and reform the tax code to close corporate loop holes. That is the formula for economic growth and a return to pay go, which of course was abandoned by republicans which put us in the mess we are in. Frankly, republican ideology will be the ruin of this nation if sound voices don’t emerge within the party.
Obama likes to use an “auto-pen” for signing bills. I wonder if this is an “auto-Mike” that is constantly logged onto BD and stuck on “repeat”?
Mike? C’mon, man. SPENDING coupled with an agreed plan to reduce expenitures?
Well yes, of course, as recommended by Simpson-Bowles, the Gang of Six, and the Rivlin commissions. The federal goverment has a role in stimulating the economy when the private sector fails to grow. Withdrawing government expenditures reduces economic actiivity and shuts down growth in GDP. Duh, have you noticed this occuring? If not, you are on another planet. But of course, as robust growth occurs, stimulus must be withdrawn, so all the commissions recommend post 2013 for the greatest cuts, so that by the end of the ten year period, growth in GDP, the reductions in expenditures, the reform of entitlements, and the closing of loop holes, will have reduced the debt to traditional levels as a percentage of GDP.
Huge tax increases coming in 2013. Billions of dollars. Need the spending decreases to match them for a balanced solution.
No, Mike. I haven’t noticed that and neither have you. When government actually starts reducing spending(expenditures), maybe we can notice together.
I part a little with some of my Libertarian friends in that I actually can see reason for the govt to “stimulate” in some situations. However, it is limited to economic realities.
Basically, we haved “stimulated” since deep into Bush’s admin. I still have no problem with his initial actions or that of the Fed even. Unfortunatly, that ran into 2 huge problems.
1) once you let govt spend like that, asking them to stop later is like asking a heroin junkie to stop cold.
2) the economic law of “Diminishing Returns”. Now instead of stimulating and inspiring confidence, Bush kept going. Soon it went to creating market fear of debt and currency stability. It also contributed to waste and corruption. Instead of “change”, Obama brought us Bush policy on steroids and made things worse.
You know darn well why the cuts were pushed into thed laps of a future congresss and it sure isn’t your explanation of it.
By now all of you should be able to see the “super committee” will not be able to agree to a deal. Look at the names… We need to plan for the deep cuts in defense that our reps voted for and supported in the debt deal. They got us in this mess.
There is no way the “super committee” is going to reach a deal by November and it serves us well if we all suffer because we elected those fools…
Well Britt, I agree that the Bush administration, by fighting two wars on a credit card, and authorizing new Medicare benefits without paying for them, and failing to regulate mortgages, overcooked the economy and nearly caused the international financial system to collapse. We continue to suffer those effects. The steps taken to correct that situation brought us back from the brink of chaos, but effects remain today. The trick is to continue to helop the recovery, yet at the same time, signal a real willingness to change back to pay go when we can do so without causing recession.
Grover tweeted: “Debt Supercommittee”: Republican picks are budget experts. Dem Senate picks are politicals. Like Obama Dems will vote “present”.
So, we agree on Bush, yet you deny that we now fight 3 wars rather than 2? That Obama has outspent even Bush? That unemployment is higher? More people on food stamps? That Democrats especially Barney Frank are just as guilty as George Allen on not regulating mortgages? Are you denying the equally obvious failures and betrayals by the Democrats and Obama? Or does your political bias blind you to them?
Well, I would not use such harsh language. I believe the President has wound down the war in Iraq, is doing the same in Afghanistan, and do not believe the support of NATO in Libya comes close to a war. Yes, some numbers are higher; no one in their right mind actually believed that recovery from the Bush era would be easy. But we are on the correct trajectory, and we would be doing much better were it not for the self imposed walk on the brink, brought to us by the Republican Party. The party has ignored every major bi-partisan commission that has laid out a plan for full recovery, prefering instead their own mantra, which is not a plan, just a bumper sticker. That is not the way to govern.
Ok, I will agree with you that at least things are winding down in Iraq, but it still counts. We are still spending lots of money there and people are dying. I have to acknowledge a draw down. I don’t accept that in Afghanistan. There is a lot of talk and posturing and a few moves made. We are still at war there. You have seen the news lately on the tragic loss of our SEALs and special ops, right.
You can say we’re not as fully engaged in Libya as we are elsewhwere, but we are indeed at war. Spin with NATO this and that, but that is all it is. Obama deserves credit for that mess.
Hey, I agree the Republicans until recent backbones started appearing are to blame for much of our problems. Hey at least they’re thinking about cuts……..one day. Right trajectory? That remains to be seen. The credit downgrade was not inspiring. Sometimes bi-partisanship equates to zero change and outright cowardice. It equates to failing to do what is needed. In this case, I say beyond nasty rhetoric, policy wise there has way too damn much bi-partisanship. After all, Obama is doing what Bush did. Only bigger and faster. I don’t share your optimism over the Democrat approach.
A lot of sound and fury over nothing here. Of course, Mark Warner wasn’t picked for this committee. If he serioulsy though he ever had a shot, it proves he doesn’t understand how Congress works. As congressional panels go, the “Super Committee” is a pretty big deal. Which means no freshman Senators need apply. It wouldn’t have mattered if Warner was Reid’s favorite freshman senator (I’m pretty sure he’s not), he still wouldn’t have gotten on this committee.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.