Gaming Out the Supercommittee – Mother Jones

With the debt ceiling deal all but assured of passage, Suzy Khimm moves on to the next big question: who’s going to be on the Supercommittee that’s tasked with cutting an additional $1.5

trillion from the deficit by November?

Republicans, for their part, are unlikely to appoint anyone who’s publicly supported including revenue as part of a debt deal, namely in the form of tax increases….“No one from the Senate

Gang of Six, who proposed tax increases, need apply,” the Wall Street Journal opined. “The GOP choices should start with Arizona Senator Jon Kyl and House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, adding

four others who will follow their lead.”

On the Democratic side, fiscal hawks and centrists will probably back Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who reportedly pushed for cutbacks to Medicaid, food stamps and other

entitlements….Liberals will want to see the likes of Sen. Tom Harkin and Sen. Sherrod Brown on the committee. “Unfortunately, I don’t think the leadership will allow this,” says Dean Baker,

an economist at the Center for Economic Policy Research. “I worry that the Dems will be the usual suspects, starting with the Gang of Six crew.”

Unfortunately, this is my take too. Republicans will appoint nothing but tax hardliners (which shouldn’t be too hard, since that’s at least 80% of their caucus) while Democrats will appoint

at least one or two centrist types. That’s all it will take to get a majority in favor of yet another cuts-only plan. Whether this can pass in the Senate is unclear, but it might not matter.

The entire debt ceiling agreement may have been negotiated under the presumption that no follow-on deal would be reached and the automatic trigger cuts were highly likely to go into effect.

The Supercommittee might just be window dressing.

But maybe not. So given the reality that the Supercommittee exists, what would be my dream deal? Pretty simple: it would be an agreement to focus 100% of the plan on healthcare, split

between benefit cuts and tax increases. Politically, this is a pipe dream, of course. And substantively, it runs into the fact that PPACA already made a lot of cuts in Medicare and we don’t

yet know how they’re going to work out, which makes further cuts sort of dicey. That may not make additional reforms impossible, but it does make it especially important to choose the

details thoughtfully. A slow phase-in of higher payroll taxes might be OK, for example, along with a little bit of means testing. Ditto for some reductions in provider payments, cuts in

Medicare Advantage, and negotiating authority for prescription drugs. (Then again, these things might not be OK. I’d defer to smarter people than me over the details.)

But one way or another, if we’re going to insist on obsessing over the long-term deficit, then we might as well obsess over the part of the federal government that’s actually responsible for

the long-term deficit. And that’s all in healthcare.

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

“Lying.” “Disgusting.” “Scum.” “Slime.” “Corrupt.” “Enemy of the people.” Donald Trump has always made clear what he thinks of journalists. And it’s plain now that his administration intends

to do everything it can to stop journalists from reporting things they don’t like—which is most things that are true.

No one gets to tell Mother Jones what to publish or not publish, because no one owns our fiercely independent newsroom. But that also means we need to directly raise the resources it takes

to keep our journalism alive. There’s only one way for that to happen, and it’s readers like you stepping up. Please help with a donation today if you can—even a few bucks will make a real

difference. A monthly gift would be incredible.

“Lying.” “Disgusting.” “Scum.” “Slime.” “Corrupt.” “Enemy of the people.” Donald Trump has always made clear what he thinks of journalists. And it’s plain now that his administration intends

to do everything it can to stop journalists from reporting things they don’t like—which is most things that are true.

No one gets to tell Mother Jones what to publish or not publish, because no one owns our fiercely independent newsroom. But that also means we need to directly raise the resources it takes

to keep our journalism alive. There’s only one way for that to happen, and it’s readers like you stepping up. Please help with a donation today if you can—even a few bucks will make a real

difference. A monthly gift would be incredible.

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Inexpensive, too! Subscribe today and get a full year of Mother Jones for just $19.95.

Award-winning photojournalism. Stunning video. Fearless conversations.

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

We’re a nonprofit newsroom, because the truth-telling investigations we’re known for don’t happen under corporate ownership. We shine a bright light into the dark corners of power and report

the facts other media are afraid to touch.

The essential ingredient that makes this possible? Readers like you. Please stand with Mother Jones and make a donation today. These are dangerous times, and we’ve got a lot of hard,

consequential work to do. But we can’t do it without reader support.

We’re a nonprofit newsroom, because the truth-telling investigations we’re known for don’t happen under corporate ownership. We shine a bright light into the dark corners of power and report

the facts other media are afraid to touch.

The essential ingredient that makes this possible? Readers like you. Please stand with Mother Jones and make a donation today. These are dangerous times, and we’ve got a lot of hard,

consequential work to do. But we can’t do it without reader support.