Why the super committee cannot fail
Armstrong Williams | 3/21/2013, 12:08 p.m.
A third reason is political. What message does it send to the electorate that not only could Congress not responsibly address its duties, but even a sub-group with specific tasks failed miserably? What do such actions say for future "blue-ribbon commissions"? Our worst fears would be confirmed.
Even when lawmakers remove the cacophony of multiple voices and agendas and drill down to allegedly bipartisan officials with one joint goal in mind, failure seems to be the only product.
To compound matters, several Beltway publications last week ran front-page headlines that read: "President Stays Away from Deficit Panel." The stories went on to say the White House had not made a single call to super committee members, choosing instead to get updates from Democratic leaders. Are you kidding me? This is perhaps the single most important congressional action of 2011 and 2012-certainly according to Wall Street-and the president is sitting on the sidelines? Who made that call?
You might as well inaugurate President Romney in January if this deal implodes. I don't see any upside for Obama if the panel fails, not to mention for his party that's flailing in search of a sound economic agenda.
Much hangs in the balance for this "Super 12." And while I sense the American people know this is serious business with serious consequences, I'm not so sure the same sense of urgency is shared by our political leaders. Markets don't lie, and they definitely don't wear political stripes. Rather, they simply punish or reward.
This country is due some good news for a change from Wall Street. Congress and the president can help usher in that positive outcome just in time for Christmas.