Harry Reid Put Party First With Debt 'Super Committee' Picks

August 15, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (16)

One has to wonder if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is really serious about bringing federal spending under control.

Under his leadership it's been more than two years since Senate Democrats produced an actual budget. He's carried water for every bad idea President Barack Obama has had, including Obamacare and the effort to raise taxes in the middle of an economic downtown. And he single-handedly stopped the forward progress of "Cut, Cap and Balance," the one real, game-changing proposal to deal with the debt limit.

His commitment to addressing the spending is questionable, as evidenced by his appoint of Washington Sen. Patty Murray as the Democratic cochair of the new congressional "super committee" that was given in the debt ceiling deal the responsibility for finding an additional $1.5 trillion to cut from the federal budget. [See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]

She may be an able legislator but she is in no way considered an expert on the federal budget. In bypassing the likes of Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad in favor of Murray, Reid is sending a signal that other considerations--political considerations--may be more important to him than it is to have the "super committee" do its job effectively.

You see, in addition to being the cochair of the "super committee," Murray is the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, an organization that is responsible for raising money and electing Democrats to the U.S. Senate. Her primary responsibility, therefore, is to raise money and to make sure that the ranks of her partisan colleagues increase at the next election and to deny the Republicans control of the U.S. Senate in the next election.

The two functions are not compatible. One requires a degree of bipartisanship, a willingness to compromise in the best interests of the country and to take on tough issues in a way that is good for everyone. The other is purely political and requires ruthless partisanship, a resistance to any compromise that might be seen as helping the other party and the need to avoid forcing her Democratic colleagues to cast tough votes on tough issues. [See the GOP's top Senate targets for 2012.]

In appointing Murray to lead the committee, Reid made a partisan decision, once again putting internal Senate Democratic politics ahead of the country's best interests. It is just this kind of business as usual that the voters are rejecting all across the country.

If Reid were really serious about wanting the "super committee" to succeed—rather than simply protecting his partisan flanks—there were other members he could chosen, members who are arguably above politics like Conrad or retiring Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who is leaving the Senate in January 2013 and doesn't have to worry about re-election. Instead, Reid put partisanship first—and he should be ashamed of himself.

Tags:
Jim Webb,
Democratic Party,
Kent Conrad,
Patty Murray,
Senate,
debt,
deficit and national debt,
Harry Reid

Reader Comments Read all comments (16)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Bill Hedges,

All of the above examples of how tax CUTS brought in MORE revenue fail to look at the overall budget adjustments of the presidents you are listing. For one thing, Kennedy may have lowered the overall tax rate. HOWEVER, he also closed a lot of loopholes that taxpayers were using to pay less than their rate required. You have to understand the difference between the tax RATE, and the EFFECTIVE tax. Kennedy raised income because the taxpayers had fewer ways to make deductions, resulting in people paying amounts closer to the rate. The same thing is now true of the corporate tax rate, which Republicans constantly hype as the "highest in the world". Yes, but that is the RATE. It does not reflect the amound of taxes actually PAID. A huge number of corporations hire very skilled accountants that find ways to deduct from their taxes, resulting in some corporations paying little to nothing in taxes, and others even getting refunds.

As for Reagan, he is fondly remembered by conservatives for making a huge cut in the tax rate FOR THE WEALTHY. However, this left the economy in a recession and the deficit quickly growing. What no conservative seems to remember is that Reagan RAISED taxes, 11 times! He signed the largest corporate tax increase in history. He really jacked up the payroll taxes (shifting a large burden to lower incomes). Also, despite the small-government myth, he greatly increased spending, finally amassing as much debt as all the previous presidents COMBINED!

Bush 1 had to raise taxes, also. He didn't like it, and he figured it would cost him the election, but it WAS NECESSARY.

Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy further. Somehow, you found an opinion that this was a "failure" and that the surplus was because of fiscal restraint. Not a "tax and SPEND" president, then? If fiscal restraint brought a surplus by itself, I assure you the tax increase ADDED to it. All this nonsense about how lower taxes brings in more money is laughable. Using that theory, you should accept less pay from your employer, and pinch pennies instead. Don't be surprised if it doesn't make you rich.

Susan O of WA 10:55PM August 16, 2011

Patty Murray probably WILL work to keep damages limited when it comes to Social Security and Medicare, and she has had many years of experience in Congress and with Veterans and the military. If it comes to cutting the military, she knows enough to make sensible choices. I should know; she's my Senator. The problem with Reid's choices is not Murray. It is Max Baucus. Baucus is NOT a dedicated Democrat and has voted conservative on many things. He is not at all liked by Democrats who wanted a single-payer system or a public option in ObamaCare. He ruled them out from the beginning. As for the "bad idea" of ObamaCare - Obama didn't write it. Most of it was lifted right out of a REPUBLICAN health bill proposed years ago in opposition to the ClintonCare plan. It included the mandate, by the way, and most of it was written by a former vice-president of Wellpointe - who was recruited by Baucus. You Republicans only oppose it because OBAMA got it through!

And I'm tired of you howling about what a big spender Obama is. How many appropriations bills have been passed since the Republicans gained the majority in the House? Your game is to block or filibuster ANYTHING Obama wants done, and he can't spend money the Congress doesn't give him, can he? C'mon, SOME of us DO know what the Constitution says about procedures. Can you give me a list of the things he has thrown vast sums of money at lately? I don't think so.

I assure you, Baucus is as Republican as a Democrat can get, and by that choice, I'd say Harry Reid almost guaranteed Republican wins when it comes to trimming costs. It also means that he will likely agree to changing Medicare and other popular social programs - probably for the worse, rather than deadlock the commission six-six. That result would force automatic, predetermined cuts that WOULD LEAVE OUT THE ENTITLEMENTS. And as for appointing committee members with strictly partisan considerations, why are ALL of the Republicans nominated renowned as hard-liners AGAINST raising taxes on the wealthy?

Suze O of WA 10:05PM August 16, 2011

Buffett is not a business man - he is a financial man who has never run any sort of manufacturing company.

Big difference in what skill set that brings to the table.

junior of DC 3:27PM August 16, 2011

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Political Enemies: Good vs. Perfect

In politics the perfect is often the enemy of the good.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement