Newt Gingrich Slams 'Supercommittee' Tasked With Cutting Federal Government Spending

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia, still a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination despite his campaigns struggles this summer, took aim at the 'supercommittee set up by Congress as part of the deal to raise the federal debt ceiling. The committee is tasked with cutting $1.2 trillion from the federal government over the next 10 years.

Nothing illustrates the gap between Washington and America better than the difference in reaction to the supercommittee that the debt ceiling deal set up to cut spending, insisted Gingrich on Wednesday. In Washington, a 12-member group with tremendous power to dictate the details of debt reduction is seen as a great idea. Outside Washington, people applaud every time I condemn the process. The rest of America sees a plan to skip 523 members of Congress while focusing power on a select 12 as a dangerous centralization of authority. People instinctively understand that their senators and congressmen will be on the outside lobbying the powerful 12.

Ninety-seven percent of the American people have now lost representation in critical decisions about the size and scope of their government, continued Gingrich. The rest of America also intuitively understands the absurdity of reducing the 217 committees and subcommittees that normally contribute to policy decisions in the House and Senate to one supercommittee' for the whole Congress.

If every committee and subcommittee tackled an equal share of spending reductions, they would each be responsible for cutting $7 billion over 10 years. That would be about $700 million a year, which even overstates the goal because there would be some savings from not paying interest on the debt if spending is cut, added Gingrich. Of course, some subcommittees have very limited jurisdictions and should be assigned smaller goals. Others have huge jurisdictions (like Medicaid) and should have somewhat larger goals. I have no doubt that 535 members in 217 committees and subcommittees, using all their staffs, would achieve smarter results than 12 people frantically looking for the big solution.