Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.), who found out this morning that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) had selected him to serve on the congressional “super-committee,” said he “very strongly hopes” the panel can reach an agreement to avoid triggering the fallback measure that includes deep cuts to defense spending. In order for that to happen, Toomey told reporters on a conference call Wednesday, both parties will have to compromise. “If this committee is going to be successful, it absolutely has to have bipartisan support,” he said. “That’s how it was set up. This has to be done in a cooperative fashion.”
The freshman senator and former Club for Growth president said his “guiding principles” on the committee will be “the twin goals of reducing the deficit and continuing to promote economic growth.” To that end, he hopes to reform the tax code in order to broaden the base while lowering rates and growing the economy. “That will also generate more revenue,” he said. “A stronger economy always does.”
Major tax reform, Toomey suggested, would be difficult to achieve in the short period of time the committee will have to produce an agreement (by Nov. 23), but pointed to his recent vote to eliminate ethanol tax subsidies, which he called “indefensible,” saying that there are “a lot of opportunities in the tax code to make it much more sensible and in a way that encourages economic growth.”
Toomey, who like every other Republican appointee to the committee has signed Grover Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” has acknowledged having “subtle” differences with the Americans for Tax Reform president. But Norquist offered his approval Wednesday, writing on Twitter: “Boehner and McConnell appoint friends of taxpayers to the ‘Debt Super Committee’ your wallet is safe.”
The senator expects a busy schedule for committee members once Congress returns from the August recess. “I imagine we’ll be meeting frequently including times when the entire Congress may not be in session,” he said. “We’ve got a great deal of work to do under a very tight time frame.”
Because of the abbreviated time frame, Toomey suggested that the new committee would not be starting from scratch, but rather building off of the “thoughtful ideas” that have already been “developed and demonstrated to have substance and political support.” He did not mention any particular proposal (e.g., the Gang of Six) by name.
Either way, Toomey says, the committee should not feel bound by the $1.5 trillion deficit reduction target set out in the recently passed debt ceiling bill. “If we could do more, we should,” he said. “We should be as ambitious as we can be.”
Toomey is so far the only super-committee appointee who voted against the debt-ceiling bill, claiming it did not go far enough. “Given all of the variables concerned, there were not sufficient reductions in spending that were commensurate to the circumstances we find ourselves in,” he said, and went on to casually predict that the Congressional Budget Office would soon be putting out a revised budget outlook that “is going to paint an even gloomier picture about deficits and debt.”
Regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D., Nev.) appointees to the committee, Toomey said he was “surprised” by the selection of Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.), who currently chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “But I’ll leave it to others to address it.”
We didn't put you there to compromise. Compromise is how we rang up $15,000,000,000,000 in public debt.
We put you there to cut spending and keep taxes on productive people (who are fewer and fewer in number) from going up.
If you don't know your assignment, your Republican cohorts will find out next year. NO new taxes on the middle class are acceptable, under whatever guise you label them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOr heck, they could come off vacation early and start doing the business of getting the American people's federal budget/expenses in shape. But why do that? They get their paychecks whether they show up or not, perform or not, fix things or not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed. Do they really need three months to get this done? The sooner the better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>Regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D., Nev.) appointees to the committee, Toomey said he was “surprised” by the selection of Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.),
I wasn't. You want a big spending Democrat to protect your party's interests? She'll do the job.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith Upton onboard, I can guarantee you that the Democrats will get exactly what they want, i.e. massive Tax Hikes and Defense Cuts. It's all academic what the more conservative members might think. A simple majority will decide.
So let's review what he have gotten out of this terrific Debt Deal that NRO was so eager for us to support:
Trillions in Debt - Check
Future Deficits - Check
Downgrade - Check
Market Panic - Check
Tax Hikes - Check
Defense Cuts - Check
etc, etc, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy would the Dems compromise? Their base wants cuts in defense spending.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePrediction: Upton on the House side and Kyl on the Senate will support some kind of euphemistic tax increases. Upton often voted with Dems on economic issues during the Bush years, and Kyl suddenly switched sides on illegal immigration, selling out supporters of fence construction.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSen. Toomey is sharp, a fiscal conservative with sound economic sense. He is not apt to sell out to Dem interests or pressures. I think that he will be a skilled negotiator who operates in the best interests of our nation, our economy, and the taxpayer.
Just remember that it was Huckabee, who sneered about the Club for Growth as the "club for greed." It is squishes like Huckabee, who do our party in.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLook, if we had a moderate Republican Party dealing with a moderate Democrat Party, and Tea Party types and extreme Libs were fringe instead of mainstreamed, and if we weren't facing monumental debt problems that are the symptoms of the true overarching argument of whether we want to go fiscally frugal or woefully socialistic, then maybe we could hope for 'compromise'. But given the stakes and given the existential philosophical argument, and given that the very future of our nation hangs in the balance, what exactly would we compromise towards? The current sides are entirely nonoverlapping magisteria - there is no common ground between the absolute need for immediate fiscal sobriety and the liberal drive to expand government without limit. No common ground there, nothing to compromise over.
The goal is not to compromise with them. The goal is to defeat them. PERIOD.
If the current Republican hierarchy is not up to that task, just say the word - or show it with your actions. We'll find people who are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactamundo.
Fools are talking about people staying away from the polls if we put forth an "extreme" candidate (Bachmann, Palin, Perry, etc...).
The reality is: If you wanna see people staying away in droves, chuck an uninspiring squish up there.
We're left holding the meaningless end of the stick "compromise" after "compromise". It is the Left's turn. "Um, we're flattening income taxes, reducing corporate taxes, and eliminating capital gains and death taxes. The Depts of Education, Energy, and Health are gone. That's just for starters. But, hey, Democrats...buck up! We'll legalize weed. All in the same bill."
Talk about bonus material... A lot of Democrat voters will be too baked to make it to the polls or will forget their required identification even if they manage to get there. Evil conservative Dominos Pizza can chip in and disenfranchise huge swaths of lefty voters by running an Election Day all-you-can-gorge delivery special.
Strategery. Strategery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGet rid of that annoying ad.
In the near future, the nature of Mr. Norquist's other friends (the ones Cheney correctly identified as "wearing diapers held on by fan belts") will slip out.
Watch as those Republican signatories tell funny stories about how it never happened.
Oh, the "Committee"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA scam to prevent the public from seeing which special interests are being protected, and how the public interest is gutted like a fish to do it.