Of Course the Super Committee Failed.

So, the Super Committee failed to come to agreement on future budget cuts. That's not exactly a big surprise. The whole thing reeked of little more than a gimmick from the word go.

But it was a bi-partisan group designed to show that the whole of Washington is working together to solve the nation's budget woes, supporters will say. They ignore that it was never, nor could it have been, a true pi-partisan committee at all. It was made up of high level Democrats and Republicans, who acted as Democrats and Republicans tend to do. They disagreed. The result should not be shocking.

Now everyone's blaming everyone else for the failure, based on partisan grounds. This too should not cause gasps. It's what political opponents do.

The plain truth is that no one had any reason to expect that the Committee would work. It was simple grandstanding. The actual need to cut the budget in the future is just that: something to be done in the future. For now, the political powers in DC got what they all wanted: the appearance of working towards a solution, with the ability to blame the other guy when things didn't work out in the short run.

And that is precisely why the Super Committee was doomed from the start. We know from experience that Congress, outside of clear majorities in both Houses (and even then not necessarily), will generally not get things done until the last minute. Never mind that extended unemployment benefits beyond the end of this year, for a single issue example, are at risk with the Committee's failure to act. The end of this year is still six weeks away. That question and a good many others will almost certainly be addressed before everyone goes home for Christmas. They simply have to become short term objectives first.

Until then, watch CNN and Fox News, all you political wonks, for whatever it's worth. But kindly spare us beating your breasts over what is in truth of no note. We aren't at endgame. Nothing is going to happen yet, because it just doesn't have to. Period.

The Super Committee and Michigan

Three members of Congress from Michigan discussed the so-called Congressional super committee, formed towards finding comprehensive agreement on reducing the federal deficit, in Detroit yesterday before the Detroit Economic Club. All they really had to say was that the disagreed on the matters before the committee.

Representative Candace Miller, a Republican, and Representatives Sander Levin and Gary Peters admitted they liked one another personally but were sharply divided on where to cut spending and where to raise taxes. It is no surprise that the Republican wanted most of the savings to come from budget cuts while the Democratic duo would like to see a mix of added taxes with spending cuts.

Yet they didn't address what might be the most important part of the matter. Why are we having a super committee at all?

Isn't it the job of Congress to handle budget matters? Are we doing a smart thing by essentially funneling the job into the hands of a few people? Or are we merely laying the groundwork for something worse: an oligarchy which, in the long run, will be even father from the people than the local representatives they already have?

As likely as not, the point of this committee is probably to appear bipartisan while giving individual members of Congress a certain deniability. When forced to support things their constituents might not like, they can argue that they had little choice. They had to back the super committee.

This is not good. Not good for the people, not good for Detroit or Michigan, not good for the federal republic we have enjoyed for so long. It is creeping centralized tyranny of the type we objected to in 1776. It is sham democracy and ought to be done away with.