did I miss something?

[creaker]

I remember once upon a time not so long ago there was a super-committee that failed to get a spending(cutting) bill together, and that failure was suppose to trigger a ton of automatic cuts.

I've been listening to the news - no one talks about these cuts happening, no one talks about the super-committee any more - just business as usual. Did they nullify it? Ignore it? Did I imagine it?

[Alan]

They're not scheduled until 2013, another of those "after the next election", "kick the can down the road" things.

[fidgiegirl]

They gave up!
http://www.newser.com/story/133820/super-committee-fails-to-reach-agreement-on-budget-cuts.html

My understanding is that now the automatic cuts scheduled in the August legislation (that also established the supercommittee) will take effect, not sure when.

[iris lily]

creaker, my local newspaper (which is now going bankrupt) printed a chart of the Congressional plan, and that chart stated the automatic cuts go into effect in "2012." I cut out that chart and put it on my refrigerator. I, too, was under the impression that cuts happened immediately after a Supercommittee failure.

But Alan is right, cuts go into effect in 2013 which means it will not really happen.

Throw the bums out.

And to my newspaper which cannot even deliver accurate news: gosh, shut the door on your way out and buh-bye!

[Gregg]

You didn't miss anything because they didn't do anything. Surprise, surprise.

[Florence]

You didn't miss anything because they didn't do anything. Surprise, surprise.

What we need to do is hire Congress as independent contractors (no benefits) and pay them only when the budget is completed and signed. If they can't do it on time, we fire them and outsource it to India.

[mamalatte]

I hate to agree with anything Rick Perry says, but I like his idea of a part-time Congress. Gives them half as much time to make unnecessary laws and spend all our $$$.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I hate to agree with anything Rick Perry says, but I like his idea of a part-time Congress. Gives them half as much time to make unnecessary laws and spend all our $$$.

Only I fear what they will be up to the other half of the year :laff: (lobbying, campaigning etc.)

[mtnlaurel]

Only I fear what they will be up to the other half of the year :laff: (lobbying, campaigning etc.)

What do you mean they will be... it seems like that's what is right now- constant campaigning!

I want a full-time Congress with full-time results.

[Gregg]

What do you mean they will be... it seems like that's what is right now- constant campaigning!

I want a full-time Congress with full-time results.

Agreed. Can you say term limits?

[creaker]

Agreed. Can you say term limits?

I'd like to see people in office have their financial assets go into economic limbo, instead - basically they give up all their financial assets for an amount of money which they'll get back when they leave office. Too many people in office appear to be using their access to information to profit on the market. Which makes you wonder how many might (do?) play the government (create situations where preknowledge is worth something) so they can play the market.

I don't like the idea that if someone gets into office I really like, I won't have the option to vote them back in.

[iris lily]

I hate to agree with anything Rick Perry says, but I like his idea of a part-time Congress. Gives them half as much time to make unnecessary laws and spend all our $$$.

Did perry actually SAY that??!!!!! That guy has more sense than I gave him credit for. That and his tax plan, I like. I've been saying the same thing for years. Our founding fathers were farmer/businessmen legislators. They never intended professional Congress people to park their butts in D.C. forever.

I'ave always said: make a constitutional amendant that Congress will not meet longer than 3months per year. Send the bums home. My second, runner up choice, is a Congress in deadlock. They move nothing forward. yay for us (but they DO have to finish a budget.)

[freein05]

Term limits do not work. We have them in California and they just keep changing hats. They will move from the legislature to the senate then to another elected position like attorney general etc.

[Lainey]

States like Arizona, Mississippi and Texas have part-time legislatures and they manage to wreak plenty of havoc despite the short session.
But I agree that being a politician for a lifetime profession was never intended.

[puglogic]

Just as being a politician who makes a ton of money, with so many perks and so much privilege, was never intended.

Do you think if we pegged congressional salaries to the average American income ($49,445), we'd then only get people who really, really WANTED to serve their country?

[Gregg]

Do you think if we pegged congressional salaries to the average American income ($49,445), we'd then only get people who really, really WANTED to serve their country?

I would tend to do exactly the opposite. A university can't get the best football coach for $49K. A Fortune 500 company can't get the best CEO for $49K. What you would get would be a whole lot of people who might want to save the country, but would have no experience running anything, much less the government that presides over the world's largest economy. I won't exactly say that you'd get a lot of crack pots, but I will say that I'd rather have experienced crooks running the show if that is the choice.

We're talking about leaders and we (as a country) need the best we can get right now. We need talent and ambition and experience. That doesn't, and shouldn't, come cheap. I'm on board to stop any practice that would be illegal for any non-member of Congress like the insider trading that goes on. That is BS. However, when it comes to salaries I don't think we pay enough. The world's biggest companies have total market caps around 1/10th of the ANNUAL budget of the United States. As a general rule the people who run those companies aren't subjected to anywhere near the scrutiny that political leaders are and they also generally make a lot more money. If you were among the leaders, the best your generation had to offer, which way would you go? Its a no brainer in my mind. The government, like it or not, is in the position of needing to compete with the private sector for talent. If it doesn't, we're sunk.