But, as to President Obama, he did rather well and so did the Democrats. No one should underestimate the battle ensued by the Democrats elected to the Senate and the House. They were wonderful.
Hey, President Obama finally got his bi-partisan vote after 2 and a half years of trying. Good for him. I think the Republicans that voted with Democrats were equally as scared of the Tea Baggers, but, that is another discussion.
As to the Debt Ceiling Law.
The obvious is the President is off the hook for lacking the will to bring about over $4 Trillion in debt reductions to satisfy the credit rating agencies. The full burden for that falls squarely on Republican failures to reach beyond their ideology.
I also believe President Obama will outline his 'Grand Plan" or deal or whatever they called it in a way throughout the next year and a half to achieve $4 Trillion in debt reductions anyway, so, with that let me begin.
The 'pivotal' event in the new law is a committee of twelve people, all elected, six from each party. There is 'inherent' understanding about the definition of a committee that dictates cooperation, so if there is a failure on either party it is their failure and not the collective members of the committee. The Republicans are promising an impasse already and for absolutely no reason except political. If it isn't obvious to the American people this law is completely political in its origins and purpose than I don't know what should be. For that reason, the 'handling' of the choice of committee members has to be somewhat mutual so this is what I propose as a member of the citizens the President called on to bring pressure to Congress.
Both parties should come up with six candidates each of those they would want to be on a committee that would safeguard their political interests, which in the Democrats caucus, would mean safeguarding the entitlements, education and the health of the country beside agenda items proven helpful to the American people. Of that 'Dream Team' list it should be submitted to the opposite caucus. Democrats would submit their six favorites to the Republican caucus and the Republicans would submit their six members to the committee. Of those six chosen three can be eliminated by the opposite caucus. It doesn't have to be written into the bill to do this. Is is between two caucuses in the country and ground rules and the room and the table and the chairs can be decided within that authority. Again, there are 'inherent' understandings to all of this law and if either caucus doesn't nail down those 'inherent' definitions from the beginning then they will never achieve an agreement.
Once three have been eliminated by the opposite caucus, the same caucus must draw up their list of potential committee members from the opposite caucus and the remaining vacancies can then be filled by those chosen by the opposite caucus. At the end of the brief process the committee will have been formed by consensus so there can be no 'in fighting' as to whom became part of the committee or as to why. I would suggest for every vacancy up to three there should be two Democrats chosen by the Republicans to submit back to the Democrats for decision. At same would hold true for Republicans. If there are three Republicans removed from the delegates to the committee by the Democrats than there needs to be six other Republicans chosen by the Democrats to submit to the Republicans for decision. At the end of this process there will be three from the extremes and most likely three from the middle of both parties and that would leave a majority of six delegates to the committee as moderates. The three each from the extremes are there to balance the middle in their decisions as the extremes will bring 'information' more than any reason to vote on reforms. Sort of like advisers to the committee so as to not leave any agenda item of any caucus without representation.
This process will eliminate extremist majority from either caucus and place the moderates, which is where Independent Voters live, in the best outcomes for all.
Now, to the work at hand.
By November the committee of twelve will have to have completed their work. Enough time, if not sufficient, given there will be other responsibilities these committee members will have both in a general assembly of the House and Senate and on their committees they always serve on. The work has to be intense, to the point and void of obstructionism. There is sincerely no time for that mess.
If there are protracted debates from outside sources than the committee itself the process will be tainted so the committee needs to limit its conclusions until finished. This is a blind process as there will be no Public Comment Period. It is unfortunate, but, also fortunate because lobbyists are completely eliminated in a 'CLOSED COMMITTEE' with a final decision published upon their completion. There is no Congressional vote about this either. This is strictly to remove 'cost' to the current national debt. The committee's work is vital and final. It is slightly un...NO...it is very undemocratic EXCEPT it was agreed upon by elected majorities in both the House and Senate. This is different than normal committee work these legislators are used to, so I suggest they be seasoned and able to come to their final decisions with clear authority. I don't believe this committee is a place for Freshman of either party. These folks have to know what they are doing. I will say this, with such elite powers as this committee contains there is a strong possibility as soon as it concluded and published there will be lawsuits that will make it to the Supreme Court for its lack of transparency alone. This committee is not going to be doing popular work from either party.
Then come the decisions.
The committee process will fall apart if the committee members are difficult to work with. The 'default' parameters will kick in and I am happy about it. So, the Democrats have nothing in this measure that will cause any Democrat a moment's worry. This is profoundly wonderful new to any 'default' finding. A clear one half of something like $1.5 Trillion will have to come from the military. I am all about that and I congratulate the committee if they can't come to an agreement. THAT, while SSI, Medicare and Medicaid are protected. NOooooooo Problem.
I am down with that.
Now, these measures don't start until 2013. Inherent to the committees work is a clear understanding that The Bush Era Tax Cuts are ending December 2012. INHERENT to the committees work is the CLEAR understanding The Bush Era Tax Cuts are ending. FOR EVERYONE. That is a good thing. Absolutely.
President Obama having washed his hands of the Bush Tax Cuts should, if he already hasn't decided that, come before the Congress in 2012 with a Budget and within the State of the Union speech having rid the USA of the current tax structure.
With the end of the Bush Tax Cuts the President can now move with Simpson-Bowles to remove all the deductions within the American income tax structure and apply lower taxes for ALL Americans with and larger base. I strongly recommend the President direct Congress to act quickly to remove the burden from the Middle Class as to supporting deductibles from the tax structure to close the gap both in the amount paid and the responsibility of all Americans to contribute to their country. I suggest he base his 'transition' Budget on the realization that the new income tax base will be its foundation. He can 'surf' that reality however he finds it best.
The Bush Tax Cuts will end December 31, 2012 and the new income tax definitions void of deductions will begin on January 1, 2013. Perfect.
The work on the income tax code and the military 'stability' of the USA has to be done before any address of entitlements. Entitlements can be slated to begin work in 2014 after the Affordable Care Act comes into play and all is known to the impact of the Congress on the 'jobs picture' within the country.
When a known 'income' level is reached under the new income tax structure then and only then can a clear path to addressing entitlements begin.
As to the GAP the Republicans created with their political posturing over the past year in regard to the debt ceiling. President Obama, with his cabinet can find places to remove additional 'costs' to the national debt for his State of the Union address of 2012. The global market place will probably be satisfied after the 2012 State of the Union indicating a total of over $4.2 Trillion in debt adjustment and no downgrade will be necessary. If a downgrade occurs before the State of the Union, it will only be for a brief time until the President clearly maps out his priorities for the Congress to remove the stigma and return the USA to its usual luster.
On the side of reason, the rating agencies won't want to upset the global markets very much if this is simply a 'transition' to $4 plus trillion in indebtedness difficulty. So, with an understanding there will be minimally over $2 trillion coming from this new law, the future 'address' by the President will be well contemplated and will receive attention from people that are seeking stability in the global markets. AND. If the economic picture is less traumatized by the current jobs draw down by the Republicans by then, all the better. This jobs slow down is directly the work of the Republicans and no one else. The credibility of the USA does fall constitutionally on the Executive Branch when it comes to providing assessment and guidance to the legislature.
I think does it for now.
