The problem with this committee, like every other Congressional committee, is that it was set up as “bipartisan” in order to make it “fair,” but we are not supposed to have a two party government! We were intended to be a multi-party system (or even a no party system). The continually increasing strength of the Reps and Dems is one of the major issues that is limiting the ability of the United States to move forward in a positive manner. Check out this website that sets forth a set of proposed Constitutional Amendments that will help to correct some of these governmental “defects” of today: www.americanoverhaulact.org. I think these fixes could really get this country back on the right track!

After the Thanksgiving day holiday Congress will stand in a circle, point at the person directly accross from them and say "it is all your fault, I had a plan, you did not accept it".

EVERY AMERICAN should watch the video ( u-tube ) THE AGENDA GRINDING AMERICA DOWN ,this started in 1958 ,IT must be understood Obama is their man The Democratic party has become their party , The Republicans are not innocent But we are changing the Republican party

why would you put the same people on this super committee that got the us in the mess were in right now? we all know that the right thing won't happen they need some educated voters on it, i think.

They are not gonna do it. Let the spending cuts and the raising of taxes begin.

NO Thank you Comrade! If you want Socialism there are many countrys that offer it! They are all, of course, failing but that is what you say you want! We, here in America, want our Constitutional Republic back! That, too, will correct the disparity!

This comment is in replay to Don #52

Perhaps members of Congress should have their salaries based on fiscal responsibility.

When a federal budget is reached, Congress will be paid their salaries. No budget, no salary.

If there is a surplus, bonuses are paid, up to 15% of salary. For deficits; for every 5% over budget, 10% of salary is withheld.

Then see what happens.

There are a number of options for making Social Security a sustainable program and for reducing the deficit. Changing the benefit formula for SS would essentially eliminate the long-run funding gap and require no additional solvency tax. It also would produce the most dramatic reduction in spending on benefits, equal to 23% of long-run spending under the current benefit formula. In addition, it would retain the progressive nature of the benefit formula, but reduces the degree of progressivity relative to the current formula. Furthermore, raising the retirement age would reduce Social Security's unfunded obligations for retiree benefits to $6.3 trillion and require a solvency tax of 1.3% of taxable payroll. It would result in the third-largest program, with about 87% of the current law spending. Moreover, though the distribution of net taxes would still be progressive, of the four potential changes considered it would reduce the degree of progressivity the most relative to current law. Finally, eliminating the taxable maximum would reduce Social Security's unfunded obligation for retiree benefits to $8.3 trillion and require a 1.3% payroll tax increase. It would result in the largest program in terms of long-run spending, and would increase the progressivity of the program ().

tell all of them they will forfeit their paychecks and entitlements and then see how fast that budget gets approved.