Super Committee Likely To Announce Failure To Reach Debt Deal

By Lisa Desjardins and Kate BolduanCNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Members of the "super committee" charged with coming up with $1.2 trillion in budget cuts are focused on how to announce failure to reach a deal, Democratic and Republican aides confirmed to CNN Sunday.

While aides said no final decision had been made, they acknowledged that -- barring an unforeseen development -- an announcement of an end to negotiations is the most likely scenario.

Talks on trying to reach a deficit reduction agreement are essentially over and discussions are focused on a Monday announcement, a senior Democratic aide said.

Another senior Democratic source said, "No decisions or agreement has been reached concerning any announcement or how this will end. But, yes, the likely outcome is no agreement will be reached." A Republican aide said, "I don't think they've decided when they will do it."

Members of the 12-member bipartisan debt committee said Sunday a wide chasm remains.

A late Monday deadline looms for some kind of plan to move forward, with a vote required by Wednesday.

The mood on the morning news shows was somber, with just a glimmer of hope.

"I'm going to be waiting all day," Washington Sen. Patty Murray, Democratic co-chair of the committee told CNN's Candy Crowley on "State of the Union."

"I'll be at the table, as I've been, willing to talk to any Republican who says, look, my country is more important, this pile of bills is not going to go away, the challenges that we have is not going to disappear, we need to cross that divide," said Murray.

Her Republican counterpart, Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, said "nobody wants to give up hope."

"Reality is to some extent starting to overtake hope," Hensarling told "Fox News Sunday." But there were 12 good people who invested a lot in this trying to find common ground to try to achieve the goal of this committee."

Murray took harsh aim at Republicans who took a pledge not to raise taxes created by the president of the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform.

"I'll tell you one of the problems has been a pledge that too many Republicans took to a Republican wealthy lobbyist by the name of Grover Norquist, whose name has come up in meetings time and time again," Murray said, adding she was optimistic a compromise would be reached.

Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, said things weren't looking good for a deal.

"There is still an opportunity. There's a plan on the table that would at least take us half way to our goal," he told CBS' "Face the Nation.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, reiterated the GOP mantra that Bush-era tax cuts should continue and entitlement spending be cut. Democrats are keen on letting the Bush-era cuts expire for the highest-income Americans in 2012.

"In Washington, there are folks who won't cut a dollar unless we raise taxes," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"If you want to get serious about the deficit our country has to grow economically," Kyl said. "You can't grow if you raise taxes in the middle of a recession."

While the 12-member panel's deadline for a final vote is Wednesday, any blueprint must be made available 48 hours in advance of a committee vote and must be accompanied by a Congressional Budget Office analysis scoring how much it would reduce deficits.

To stave off automatic spending cuts known as a sequester, the super committee must propose ways to reduce deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. At least seven of its 12 members must approve a plan in order to send it to the House and Senate in the form of legislation.

Then, both chambers must vote on the bill, without amendment, by December 23. For the plan to pass, a simple majority in each chamber must vote in favor.

A failure to pass any agreement would result in $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts across much of the federal budget starting in 2013, evenly divided between defense and non-defense spending. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Congress this week that such cuts could cripple the American military establishment.

Since Congress made the law governing the sequester, it can also amend or repeal it, as some lawmakers are pushing for.

Rep. Xavier Becerra, a Democrat from California, said Sunday the challenge of reaching an agreement would require putting aside egos and special interest pledges.

"None of the 12 of us took this job so we could end up with sequester," Becerra told CNN after appearing on the Fox News program. "I was always taught when you play a sport you don't give up until the buzzer sounds and there's still time on the clock. It's too early to talk about failure."

While Democrats have expressed concern about deep cuts in social spending, programs such as Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps and veterans' benefits would be spared the budget ax.

On Friday, Republicans floated a $640 billion package, including roughly $540 billion in savings and fees, that would allow negotiators to claim at least partial success and hold down the amount of the automatic cuts.

That plan hits the middle class too hard and offers no solution for job creation, Becerra said.

The plan features mandatory spending cuts and some revenue from closing one tax loophole for corporate jet owners, along with some government fees. This would only address about half of the super committee's mandate to cut at least $1.2 trillion.

Key Republicans broke with their party's anti-tax orthodoxy this week with news of a proposal by Toomey that includes $400 billion in increased revenue, including tax hikes.

Toomey's plan would lower overall tax rates while limiting tax breaks in a way that would raise $250 billion. Republicans estimate that the reform would lead to economic growth generating another $110 billion. A change in how tax brackets are adjusted for inflation would raise another $40 billion.

The plan also includes $800 billion in spending cuts, thereby hitting the minimum threshold of $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.

Democrats have proposed a solution that would generate $400 billion from increased tax collections and $700 billion in spending meant to jump-start the economy, including an extension of the payroll tax cut, extended unemployment benefit payments and money to permanently prevent cuts in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients.

Democrats want to offset those costs with money saved from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a move some legislators in both parties characterize as an accounting gimmick.

CNN's Kevin Liptak, Jeanne Sahadi, Bethany Crudele and Phil Gast contributed to this report.
Copyright CNN 2011

The "super committee" was a joke to start with anyway. Nobody is going to agree on anything, because both sides are so far apart on taxes and revenue, and it seems that some on there aren't committed on serious cuts, and want to just tax the 1% and cutting 1 trillion in ten years is nothing.

This is a very defined example of how politics have so sharply and deeply divided us. We are no longer capable of dealing with the simplest of questions. Our knee-jerk response is to fall back on doctrine like it was a book of absolute, cardinal rules.

Should we take money away from those who have paid into programs like Social Security their entire working lives?

Should we mine wealth from those who have succeeded in our system by punishing them with higher taxes?

The answer to both is 'NO'.

We have to cut spending across the board elsewhere, and this is something the career-minded politicians of both parties dislike because those dollars go back home to their voters and basically assure reelection. There is no effort on either the Senate or the House to address this subject to the people.

So, the arguments stop at Social Security and taxes... and there it seems bound to remain.

This is it. There will be no bi-partisanship from now till 2012 when a new president is seated. Even then, there's no guarantee.

Taxes? Only an idiot raises taxes during 9% unemployment. Not to mention, a study showed that if you took 100% of the money that the 1% makes that it wouldn't even dent the debt problem. Hence, it's all about votes (as usual).

There's so much other fat that can be cut and these people aren't going to do it until we literally fall into the shitter.

TexasBlue wrote:This is it. There will be no bi-partisanship from now till 2012 when a new president is seated. Even then, there's no guarantee.

Taxes? Only an idiot raises taxes during 9% unemployment. Not to mention, a study showed that if you took 100% of the money that the 1% makes that it wouldn't even dent the debt problem. Hence, it's all about votes (as usual).

There's so much other fat that can be cut and these people aren't going to do it until we literally fall into the shitter.

I heard Bill Clinton say it was a bad idea to raise taxes, and to many Dems he's the greatest president ever lived, but for some reason they choose to side with Obama's tax the rich plan instead.

They had the chance to raise them by 86'ing the Bush tax cuts back in 2009-2010, but they wasted that time fucking with the lousy HC bill.

Surprise, surprise, Jay Carney in his press conference today says GOP is to blame for lack of progress. Obviously this was designed for the White House to blame the evil Republicans. Nothing new here. Newt was right, it would fail and that it's a joke.

Mark85la wrote:Surprise, surprise, Jay Carney in his press conference today says GOP is to blame for lack of progress. Obviously this was designed for the White House to blame the evil Republicans. Nothing new here. Newt was right, it would fail and that it's a joke.

It failed because the Dems wanted it to fail... so they could blame the GOP. Its the same shit with the "jobs" bill. More taxes and giveaways for the unions. Obama knew it wouldn't pass muster.

So.... WTF is congress allowing this "committee" to do the work that the House is supposed to do?

TexasBlue wrote:

Mark85la wrote:Surprise, surprise, Jay Carney in his press conference today says GOP is to blame for lack of progress. Obviously this was designed for the White House to blame the evil Republicans. Nothing new here. Newt was right, it would fail and that it's a joke.

It failed because the Dems wanted it to fail... so they could blame the GOP. Its the same shit with the "jobs" bill. More taxes and giveaways for the unions. Obama knew it wouldn't pass muster.

So.... WTF is congress allowing this "committee" to do the work that the House is supposed to do?

Are the Repubs going to explain why it failed to the American people or just sit there and let the Dems blame and paint them as a do nothing congress? Or else everyone will just believe the Dems.

Knowing their track record, they'll take " the high road" and allow the Dems to slander them.... along with our "unbiased" media.

TexasBlue wrote:Knowing their track record, they'll take " the high road" and allow the Dems to slander them.... along with our "unbiased" media.

Great.. I guess they don't care about losing seats in the next election.

The Republicans could stand nude on the House steps and scream at the top of their lungs about the Democrats duplicity on the "super-committee" and it wouldn't do a damn bit of good because the MSM will NEVER tell the Republican's side of this debacle.

In fact, the MSM will deliberately LIE about the Republican's position.

dblboggie wrote:The Republicans could stand nude on the House steps and scream at the top of their lungs about the Democrats duplicity on the "super-committee" and it wouldn't do a damn bit of good because the MSM will NEVER tell the Republican's side of this debacle.

In fact, the MSM will deliberately LIE about the Republican's position.

True, true.