Supercommittee Approaching Deadline

Tick, Tick, Tick: It's not that clock on "60 Minutes". It's not the debt clock striking $15,000,000,000,000 (I think that's 15 trillion). It's the time ticking away until that Congressional "supercommittee" faces its deadline to agree on at least $1.2 trillion in cuts over the next decade. The deadline is set for November 23rd, the day before Thanksgiving. It will likely be comical (except for the fact that it will be so sad) to watch the fighting to reach this agreement over the next week or so. I mean, sure, $1.2 trillion is a TON of money, even more than Albert Pujols will get in his next baseball contract. But let's be honest here, the country's debt is nearly 15 times the amount the supercommittee is trying to reach. 15 times! If it is this difficult to agree on this piddly amount (relatively speaking), how on earth will our country's leaders agree to wipe away that debt? And if we "only" do $1.2 trillion over 10 years, it would roughly take a century-and-a-half to clear away the rest of our debt, right? Maybe my math is way out of whack here...I hope it is...but that's the way it adds up to me. This surely can't be what's best for us, is it?

Cut Taxes or Cut the Deficit?

Congress' Conundrum: Cut taxes or cut the deficit? Is this an "either or" situation? Republicans want to cut the deficit. At least they say they do this time. They failed to stop the deficits from going up for the 20 years Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush served as president. But they say they do want to do it now. Is it because they don't control the White House this time or is it because they have come to terms with the fact that this skyrocketing national debt of ours threatens to completely screw over our children and grandchildren? Democrats have also started to say they want to cut the deficit. They did it the last time a Democrat ruled the White House (Bill Clinton). I do seem to remember Democrats railing on tax cuts on the campaign trail. But that apparently was just the campaign talk at the time. It seems now like the majority of Congress wants to extend tax cuts (Bush 43's) to some degree. The question is who keeps the cuts? People who make less than $200,000 a year (is that rich to you or just a nice living?)? People who make less than $1 million a year? Or should everyone get the tax cut?

Republicans say they can't raise taxes on higher-earners because some of those people (3% according to the Joint Committee on Taxation) are also small business-owners. And if they raise taxes on them, then those people can't hire workers. Here's what I would like to know: These people have enjoyed the tax cuts since 2001 and 2003 (when Congress passed Bush's tax cuts). So shouldn't our unemployment be a lot lower since they were getting those cuts all this time? Is there proof things would get worse if they saw their tax cuts end now? Let's see proof, not rhetoric, please.

Can't Congress do both? Isn't it possible to start working on that ridiculous deficit AND cut taxes, at least for some people? If you believe raising taxes during a recession (or in this case, right after a recession) isn't a good idea for the economy, then can't Congress cut out the political crap and compromise on something that will help people right now? Seriously. How hard is that?