Skip to main content

applause sign

Rep. John Larson (D-CT), who has been pushing for a second Super Congress to focus on jobs, has a new plan with the support of Democratic leadership. His new idea is to amend the current law creating the Super Congress to require a focus on job creation. Greg Sargent has the details:
Larson and Dems plan to introduce several proposals next week along these lines to amend the current law creating the super-committee — and they will ask Congress to pick from among them. One proposal would simply amend the super-committee’s current mission to include job creation. The second would ask each of the four Congressional leaders to appoint one more person to the committee, bringing its membership to 16 — and create a sub-committee on job creation that would produce a jobs proposal as part of the final deficit reduction package.

Here’s the interesting part: Both those proposals would require that the “trigger” also kick in if the committee fails to agree on a jobs proposal as part of the overall deficit deal. And both would set a clear goal: The proposal has to represent a credible effort to bring unemployment down to 5.5 percent by 2014. If the committee can’t pass such a proposal, the “trigger,” which contains defense and non-defense cuts to discourage the committee from failing, gets pulled.

Larson and Dems will next week also introduce his original idea of a separate super-committee. And then, in September, Dems will present the super comittee itself with all three of these proposals, have the committee debate it, and state a preference. Then there would be a full Congressional vote on it.

Larson tells me that both Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are on board with this plan.

The major hiccup, of course, is a House Republican leadership that has no intention of making the economy or the job situation better. Which in some ways makes this plan even smarter. As Larson told Sargent, "This will call their bluff."

That's precisely what Democrats need to be doing—putting the GOP on the spot over the thing that is most important not just to the nation's economy, but to the nation's voters: jobs. More of this, please!

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:21 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This is great news to hear. (12+ / 0-)

    I work with B2B PAC, and all views and opinions in this account are my own.

    by slinkerwink on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:27:06 PM PDT

  •  5.5% unemployment by 2014? (5+ / 0-)

    I like the idea but there's no way it's going to fly with Republican obstructionism as it will require more government spending.

    I don't even know if Obama would embrace a second, real stimulus given his validation of many Republican economic talking points.

    •  5.5% by 2014 does not seem feasible... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      supercereal, filby, Supavash

      But it does seem like a good starting point, given the Republican negotiating tactics as of late. Then again, it's hard to negotiate for "less jobs" and still manage to convince a large portion of gullible voters that you're helping them. (Of course, creating said jobs costs money up front, so they'll just push back there.)

      •  Heck, set the goal at 5.5% (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Phil S 33, psykos, Bob Duck, smiley7, Supavash

        if we only get to 7.5%, have we "failed"?

        "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle." Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by bear83 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:40:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My only concern... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bear83, Supavash

 that based on Republican tactics, the end result will be a "bi-partisan compromise" that promises to increase unemployment to 20% by 2014. :)

          But in more seriousness, I agree this is a good idea. Pushing it as a percentage makes it even better, even though the hard dollar numbers will become the point of contention. If we got to 7.5%, as you said, it's certainly not a failure.

          Polls show that Americans across party lines agree we should raise, not just Democrats. And everyone wants to create jobs. (For definitions of "everyone" that do not include corporation-people in them.) This is an excellent way to push a job agenda.

      •  Putting a man on the moon doesn't seem feasible (7+ / 0-)

        But we did it. Too bad the National Will is lost.

        August 16, 2011: Rick Perry will win the Presidency in 2012.

        by NoFortunateSon on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:50:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't say it was a bad idea :) (0+ / 0-)

          This is more as if they said "we're going to put a man on Mars" back then. And settling for the moon.

          Of course, putting a man on Mars back then wouldn't have been feasible, but if the current set of Republicans were in office, it might have been a good starting point to negotiate from!

          Although, in those days it seems like even conservative politicians realized that science is a useful thing that actually exists.

      •  I think it is feasible. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bob Duck

        Increased government spending is out. But Americans had $7.9 trillion invested in 401K and IRA funds in 2010. They are now saving around 5% of their income. But the stock market is a pretty creepy place to invest right now and probably for a while. So why not let them divert some of these savings into an infrastructure bond that would pay a tax-free yield slightly higher than a T bill? Essentially, it would be like a Liberty Bond in WW2. It would not come out of today's budget because they would be 10-year bonds. The interest rate would be low but more than recouped by the stimulatory effect of the fund as the money was used to rebuild infrastructure, expand retraining and make us more energy efficient. I would think that a fund of over $1 trillion could be built and funneled primarily through State and Local Governments. The beauty of this is that it would be money Americans have already saved and are saving. I am sure there are lots of why's and wherefore's in all this, but why can't we use our own savings to save our own country?

    •  THAT IS THE POINT!!! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

      by justmy2 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:49:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It would require deficit spending (0+ / 0-)

      We went through a royal headache wich isn't even quite over yet to get 10 year deficit spending but a major jobs bill will need to spend at least a trillion dollars to have the kind of effect we need.

      It would be nice to see something like $200 billion a year spent on infrastructure for the next 5 years but I really don't think we'll see it.

      Nor do I really expect to see the kinds of programs we need to create jobs here in the long term.  The "service economy" in the long run simply will not work.  We'll need to bring back manufacturing to this country and to do that we will have to end free trade.

      "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

      by Quanta on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 04:05:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let's Put the GOP on the spot! (6+ / 0-)

    Watch them squirm over their own rhetoric!

    Fantastic news!

  •  Couple this with a bold jobs... (7+ / 0-)

    plan from President Obama, and we really have leverage against the GOP.

    "The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference." 3/28/11

    by BarackStarObama on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:32:04 PM PDT

  •  Cool. (5+ / 0-)

    Obama needs to weigh in on this.

    I didn't care for math, but when I first understood the concept of finding the slope of a curve at a point, I wanted to grab the first girl I saw and kiss her with wild abandon, just like in that WW II photo.

    by dov12348 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:35:11 PM PDT

  •  Call me a cynic (10+ / 0-)

    Why do we need a "4th branch of government" to do what 1 of the 3 branches should already be doing?  

    This "super Congress" is nothing more than a phony panacea for those who don't want to do what they were elected to do.  

    The solution is not more committees.  The solution is representatives who understand their job and are willing to do it.  Both Democratic and Republican.  

  •  Window dressing. Publicity stunt. (4+ / 0-)
    Larson and Dems plan to introduce several proposals next week along these lines to amend the current law creating the super-committee — and they will ask Congress to pick from among them.

    It is beyond obvious that no worthwhile amendment can make it through the House, or break a filibuster in the Senate.

    Where were these people in 2009-10, when Krugman was saying over and over again that the stimulus was too small and too poorly targeted to create enough jobs?

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:10:03 PM PDT

    •  I love it when (8+ / 0-)

      folks scream "where are the jobs????"  "Why isn't the WH or Congress doing anything????"  And when they actually do something the next attack is "It won't make it through Congress!!!!!"  

      Please listen to yourself.  If you only want to settle for what will make it through both Chambers of Congress then you should be the biggest cheerleader of every compromise.

      It appears that you would prefer the Democrats to offer zero rather than challenge the Republicans to vote against what Americans are clamoring for.

      Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:39:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Signs of seriousness absent. (0+ / 0-)

        I can think of only two ways there might be a serious possibility of getting Congress to do something. Neither is, AFAIK, on the horizon. And both are long shots, anyway.

        1. Obama could engage in hostage-taking of his own by minting new money and starting to pay down the national debt. This would take away the GOP excuse of worrying about additional debt, but would run the risk of inflation. To those who say "Only the Federal Reserve can create new money," I say, nope:

        Forgive the diary-pimping, but I wrote one expanding on this idea:

        2. The Dems in Congress could propose a national clean-energy renewable portfolio standard. This would require a certain % of all US power to be generated renewably; the % would increase every year. This would create a bunch of jobs installing solar panels, wind turbines, hydro, etc. Allow credits for conservation ("negawatts") and you get jobs installing insulation, green roofs, geothermal HVAC, etc. None of this would require any tax money, thus avoiding the GOP's primary objection. But I expect the GOP would block it anyway; as I said, even this is a long shot. But it's less of a long shot than tax-funded stimulus, which is DOA unless Obama can create some kind of leverage with unilateral executive action.

        We should've levered the Blue Dogs into line back when we had 60 (nominal) votes in the Senate. Now it's too late.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 05:26:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  HeyMikey, guess what? NOTHING is "obvious." (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Forward is D not R, Bob Duck

      Especially if you sit on your hands and do fucking nothing.

      Or maybe the idea is to get the rest of us all depressed and fatalistic so we just let the Kleptocrats go ahead and steal the whole fucking EVERYTHING.

      "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

      by jm214 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:56:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please forgive my feeling down. (0+ / 0-)

        And see my reply to gchaucer2.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 05:26:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Honestly, my first thought was "kabuki" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      roadbear, HeyMikey

      because of the unlikelihood of getting this sort of proposal through either house.

      My second thought . . . well, it's a good test for Obama.  If he really fights for it, I might change my assessment of his leadership qualities.

      My third thought . . . what could it hurt?

      My fourth thought . . .  we need SOMETHING to rally progressives and the Democratic core constituencies.  Maybe this could be that.

      All in all, I found 2 and 3 persuasive enough.  I don't think it's necessarily what I'd choose for 4 but at least someone's trying to pivot.  :-)

      So, hey.  Yeah.  I'll call and write.

      Thinking is so last century. -- Nicho

      by prodigal on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:11:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Process and Rules, possibly (0+ / 0-)

      I don't know the House or Senate procedural rules, but I wonder if an amendment is easier to get to the floor than introducing new legislation. Just a guess. My initial reaction was the same as yours re: the feasibility of amending that monster. Plus... I wonder what amendments the R's would love to tack on. Obviously, 'clean' is preferable, but I'd take whatever makes the conversation focus more on jobs.

      •  This would be new law. (0+ / 0-)

        The supercommittee law is law. It's a done deal. Passed by both houses, signed by the Prez. Amending it means passing another law from scratch.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 05:14:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I like the idea a lot, BUT (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Justanothernyer, chuckvw

    I do nto see very well how you can couple the credible effort to bring unemployment down to 5.5 percent with a trigger. Who/what would determine whether the trigger should, well, be triggered? Credible is kind of fuzzy and not exactly quantifiable.

    •  I think the operating word (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jeopardydd, Beetwasher

      is "goal."  That provides for the optimal number of ideas to get the unemployment rate down.  If it only drops to 6.8 or 7 percent, I don't think too many people will be angry.  I like the ambitiousness of that goal.  

      Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:42:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Repubs will cry TAX CUTS! (6+ / 0-)

    And when the Dems don't agree to tax cuts, they'll blame the Dems for killing job creation legislation.  Don't underestimate their ability to claim up is down, and muddy the water by blaming the other side for doing exactly what they are doing.

    •  I believe the majority (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Duck

      of Americans aren't as ill-informed as they were in 2010.  They will see this as the Republicans killing jobs in another hostage taking to save the wealthy from tax increases.

      Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:44:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Will the media screw us over? (4+ / 0-)

      That's exactly the risk.  The Republicans will ask for tax cuts for the rich and call them job-creating tax cuts.  After all, hundreds of American workers in Kansas make private jets!  (Not to mention Canadians, Brazilians, Israelis, etc.)  Earlier this year, the Banana Republicans put "job creation" or something like that on another stupid bill to give the filthies even more lucre.

      So the trick will be to control the message.  Fat for the fattest cats won't create jobs for Americans; it has to be direct.  Either public projects that hire people, or support private expenditures to hire people.  Not lower taxes for the owners in case they make money, but jobs today.  Which btw is how about a third of the stimulus program worked, and it did create private sector jobs, often building useful stuff.

  •  Here's a beer to anybody in national office doing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jck, jeopardydd, filby

    something right.

    Since it's Friday, give me an excuse for another one :-)

    Fuck with the truth at your own peril. -Anonymous

    by thenekkidtruth on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:36:53 PM PDT

  •  I like it... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fighting Bill, chuckvw

    because it is a good idea on its face and it also has the chance of watering down the Super Congress focus on deficit reduction which will not help to get us out of a recession.

    "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

    by VA6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:37:31 PM PDT

  •  Fairly stupid publicity stunt (0+ / 0-)

    This will go nowhere and their proposal for invoking the trigger is subjective.

    If they were serious, they would propose the end of filibusters in the senate and have the Senate pass a real jobs program with Obama's support.

    •  I can't even make sense (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jm214, filby, Beetwasher

      of what you are saying.  You sound like Eric Cantor -- he too thinks that only one Chamber is needed to pass legislation.

      Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:50:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Who cares if it will pass (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jeopardydd, Beetwasher

      I know what will pass, a 5% tax cut for the rich.  Is that what should be proposed?

      The entire point is if you know nothing will pass, why not go for the gusto and make sure the public knows who is on their side.

      This is exactly the type of thing many of has been calling for the President to do in the face of intransigence.  

      Calling out filibusters would be good too...but these are not mutually exclusive...

      "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

      by justmy2 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:51:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  exactly. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        i've been a big critic of the president and the Democrats in general lately - but this is the kind of stuff that I've been wanting them to do.

        if we only go for stuff that will get through a GOP House or filibuster, we will get horrible right-wing policies.

        you CHANGE what is possible by aiming big, for stuff that can't make it through.

        •  This is not aiming for big stuff (0+ / 0-)

          You effect change by using your power to accomplish concrete things and present clear choices on issues where you are favored to win.

          A proposal to establish a committee with an unenforceable trigger isn't big stuff.

          •  we keep being told (0+ / 0-)

            that we can't do anything that the GOP won't vote for.

            so by definition, all we can get are right-wing policies.

            it's better to change the frame of reference with stuff that can't be passed than to pass stuff that hurts the country.

            •  This doesn't change the frame of reference (0+ / 0-)

              If you can't get things passed you need to do things that actually connect and could make a difference if passed.

              Here are examples:

              (1) permanent extension of unemployment insurance while unemployment rate is over 7%.

              (2)  infrastructure bill to rebuild roads and bridges and make buildings more energy efficient, which lead directly to jobs.

              (3) extension of Cobra and restoration of Cobra subsidies

              (4) expand Americorp, put a quarter million unemployed college grads to work

      •  This isn't "the gusto" (0+ / 0-)

        This is a proposal to establish a committee to come up with a plan...

  •  Yes, gods, get on the good foot! (0+ / 0-)

    Make the rethugs own their Big No!

    Whom do you blame more? The rattlesnake, or the bipartisan guy who put it in your sleeping bag?

    by chuckvw on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:39:18 PM PDT

  •  Taxes and Jobs (0+ / 0-)

    and a nice stimulus

  •  I think that anything which focuses solely on (0+ / 0-)

    job creation (including the plan that the President will be unveiling in early September) is a step in the right direction, and will force the GOP (both the Congress and the candidates) to answer with their own proposals.  Of course, they'll talk about "taxes on job creators ccausing uncertainty and killing jobs, blah, blah, blah," but I don't think that rhetoric is going to work any more.  People are starting to speak out in town halls, and want REAL jobs proposals and want them NOW.  If the GOP plan is to hold out and freeze all activity until Obama loses, I think they'll be the ones to lose.

    Or at least I hope so.

    While I wouldn't normally like the idea of another Super Congress, it's clear that then Regular Congress is not up to the job.  

    Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain

    by SottoVoce on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:43:16 PM PDT

  •  Love my rep, John Larson!!! Go get 'em!!!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gchaucer2, filby, Forward is D not R

    EXCELLENT proposal!!!!!

    Talk it up!!!!

  •  It's time the Dems did some politicking of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, jm214

    their own.

    "Republicans don't want jobs" is all they should say for the next 14 months.

  •  yes, yes, yes (0+ / 0-)

    Democrats in Congress: please follow through on this plan.

  •  OH!! NOW the dems will make the (0+ / 0-)

    rethugs own their "no" vote?


    I won't hold my breath.

    "I'm not scared of anyone or anything, Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?" Jack Hawksmoor

    by skyounkin on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:48:17 PM PDT

  •  I like I like..... (0+ / 0-)

    Now we are cooking with grease... who give a hoot if it can't pass...

    The President would be wise to take this and make it his own...

    "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

    by justmy2 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:48:43 PM PDT

  •  It's a legitimate proposal (0+ / 0-)
    jobs. More of this, please


    Gotta get around this new focus in D.C.  It's just ludicrous in this horrible time in our country.

    Good proposal.  Can't say enough about it.

    But, think it has a chinaman's chance to happen? neither.

    - If you don't like gay marriage, blame straight people. They're the ones who keep having gay babies.

    by r2did2 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:50:10 PM PDT

  •  Put your money on them wimping out (0+ / 0-)

    We see it again and again and again. Good intentions. No spine.

  •  "i am jobs" (0+ / 0-)

    i hope this is a hint of something building, because all the austerity hype is making things worse.

  •  It's about time (0+ / 0-)

    Dems need to show that they're not afraid to fight for what's right. They need to stand up tall and make a strong stand for jobs. Let the Rethugs show themselves to be fighting against jobs.

    Voters need to see Dems fight before they lose, instead of all the pre-surrendering we've been getting from Obama.

    Even when Dems know that they don't have the votes to win, the need to be able to show voters that they know the difference between right and wrong, and are acting on it as best they can.

    Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

    by drewfromct on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:55:00 PM PDT

  •  wherein "super congress" (0+ / 0-)

    begins to very much resemble Escher's "House of Stairs"

    "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

    by Sybil Liberty on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:59:34 PM PDT

  •  "It's the economy, stupid." "Stupid is as stupid (0+ / 0-)

    does." or doesn't. Huh - "jobs," as in what, REAL Keynesian activism in the "government has to fix business" part of the cycle, was the shorthand for a way to deal with a whole lot of the fuckovering that's been going on since Reagan canned  PATCO? Who woulda thought?

    "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

    by jm214 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:02:06 PM PDT

  •  This is just a smokescreen to cut (0+ / 0-)

    Social Secuirty and Medicare so we "have the money" to get young people jobs.

    The rich escaped unscathed, and all the govt. officials get big jobs when they leave office - most on international corps and Wall Street firms - Orzag, Gregg, anyone else in love with austerity will be rewarded.

  •  So passing a law (0+ / 0-)

    to make the unemployment rate go down without making the deficit go up, huh? Now, I have never been much into wrestling, but is a tag-team match between the super-congress on the deficit and the super-congress on jobs a possibility? People would pay to see that, especially if it involves mud.

  •  This is a surprisingly good idea! (0+ / 0-)

    How far to the right do the Dems have to move before you stop calling them Dems?

    by Diebold Hacker on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:25:30 PM PDT

  •  I Got Your Super Congress Jobs Agenda Right Here! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    1. No cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or other social programs.

    2.  A government as employer last resort jobs program.

    3. Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for those receiving income over $250,000 per.

    4. An Apollo project for green energy with the goal of energy independence.

    If I was a communist, rich men would fear me...And the opposite applies. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

    by stewarjt on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:53:52 PM PDT

  •  Ding, ding, ding, we have a winnner (0+ / 0-)

    Let's hear the Republicans tell America that we shouldn't focus on jobs, but instead on how to cut Social Security and Medicare.

    Let's hear them say jobs have nothing to do with the debt, growth, the deficit, etc.

    I can't wait to have that debate with the Teabaggers hell bent on destroying our economy.

  •  I've got a permanent jobs/debt solution (0+ / 0-)

    It's easy:

    Tie the upper income tax brackets to unemployment.

    The higher unemployment goes, the higher the tax rate on the upper income brackets go. The lower they go, the lower their taxes go. Put the tax floor at current levels and tie that to 1% unemployment. Anything above that and taxes on the rich go up from what they are now.

    If the rich create the jobs, then hold them as accountable as the Republicans say they want to hold teachers. If the rich succeed at creating jobs, they are rewarded. If they fail at creating jobs, they must subsidize the unemployment with higher taxes. End of story.

  •  Pardon me if I think this is polishing (0+ / 0-)

    A turd.

    I mean, who can convince me that this whole 'Super-de-Dooper' Committee farce isn't a crock of crap designed expressly to give cover to the politicians for not doing something meaningful with jobs or the recovery? Didn't we already have a 'commission' (the famed 'Catfud commission of this site) And it accomplished plenty. . . of nothing. I have no reason to think this new incarnation will be precisely as effective as the last one. In fact, I think it was created with exactly the notion of being just as effective as the last one.

    An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head. -- Eric Hoffer

    by MichiganChet on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 03:33:12 PM PDT

  •  The Dems need to push jobs bills... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LA Crystal

    ...continuously from now until November of 2012, and, more importantly, even beyond that.  

    Raymond Gellner - Liberal Examiner and World News Examiner at

    by regellner on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 03:33:31 PM PDT

  •  oh please (0+ / 0-)

    Amend the law!?!

    If you wanted to do something, it should have been in the law in the first place.  See also, don't tell us you want to repeal Bush tax cuts when you just renewed them.

  •  Common goal setting strategies!! Love it!! (0+ / 0-)

    Be specific about the goal - 5.5%, 7% whatever - and a specific time/deadline --- then lay out the plan to get there. This is EXACTLY what has been lacking and why the R's get away with their rhetorical BS. When asked about their 'jobs plan,' all we hear is cut taxes and cut regulations. Never is that tied to anything specific (because it can't be!). This framing changes the entire debate.... Entirely! :) I love it. Love it. And I don't care if it doesn't have a chance. It has to be done. It has not a chance in hell if it isn't tried at all -- and it is a great conversation to have.

    Why not a target and date for jobs just like they insisted on with spending and the debt ceiling? It forces things to get specific which is like kryptonite for all the crappy bogus talking points.

  •  Democrats strategize? An Oxymoron. (0+ / 0-)

    Democrats strategize is an Oxymoron unless they are working out a capitulation strategy in concert with the Great Capitulator and his Plutocratic Masters.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site