The so-called “super committee,” part of the new deal to raise the debt ceiling, is bound to fail at its goal of cutting spending — and here’s why.

In Washington, it always seems like a piece of proposed legislation has the potential to succeed. From the “Gang of Six” grand bargain in the Senate to the “McConnell plan” that would give President Barack Obama unilateral authority to raise the debt ceiling, plans and proposals are never in short supply.

The special committee is yet another one, given authority to propose spending cuts and (gulp) tax increases subject to an up or down vote in Congress.

On paper, it looks like a great proposal: Name three members of each party from each house of Congress to a committee and have them hash out spending cuts from discretionary spending and funds given to Medicare providers (read: doctors and hospitals).

Unlike the president’s deficit committee (the infamous Bowles-Simpson proposal), this group would only require a bare majority to pass its legislation. That means that, in theory, one Republican could join six Democrats, or vice versa, in passing recommendations on to the Congress.

These recommendations would be subject to an up-or-down vote in Congress: no filibuster, no amendments. President Obama retains veto power, but if a bipartisan committee and both houses pass these, it’s hard to imagine him vetoing the legislation, given his penchant for compromise. To those who say he didn’t compromise, remember: The president’s first preference was a clean raise of the debt ceiling, then a deal with revenue increases. He got neither of those things.

And here’s the kicker: if the committee is hopelessly deadlocked, a “trigger” built into the recently passed debt ceiling extension forces automatic, massive cuts . These are geared to hurt both parties’ priorities: defense spending for Republicans and domestic spending for Democrats. This “trigger,” in theory, should force parties to deal with each other in the interest of compromise.

It all sounds so simple and beautiful. Parties either compromise or we cut anyway, equally from both parties’ policy preferences. Bring the smartest people from each party together and we’ll get a historic compromise. They can even propose revenue increases by reforming the tax code!

Good luck with all of that.

There are a couple big, gaping holes in the legislation. First, it leaves the so-called “entitlement” programs — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — free from the touches of either the committee or the trigger.

I’m a Democrat, and a fairly liberal one at that. But I, contrary to some voices in my party, know Medicare is the primary driver of our national debt . Not Social Security, not Medicaid, not defense, not the infamous Bush tax cuts, not the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not the “hostilities” in Libya. It’s Medicare.

The United States spends far more than any industrialized nation on health care services, due to a number of flaws within our system, defended by a powerful, national health care and insurance lobby. To his credit, President Obama already made significant cuts to Medicare and many reforms that, if even half of them pan out, will slow the growth in Medicare spending and the system overall. But this committee can’t make any further reforms.

Second among the holes is the structure of the committee itself. Nearly every economist agrees that to fix the deficit, one has to be realistic. That means revenue increases . It is possible to generate revenue from reforming and simplifying the tax code, but reform hasn’t happened since 1988. Loopholes have piled up and they make our tax code many volumes long.

The “Gang of Six” proposed tax reform to raise revenue while lowering marginal tax rates on all income brackets. That plan won significant bipartisan support  in the Senate, from conservatives with impeccable credentials, like Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

But let’s be realistic with this committee. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kent.) and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) are not about to name Republicans to the committee ready to wheel and deal on tax reform that raises revenue. To House Republicans, at least, any increase in revenue is anathema.

That’s not a partisan point of view. Standard and Poor’s downgraded the United States’ sovereign debt from AAA to AA+ (Moody’s and Fitch kept our rating at AAA). Reasons given for this involve political gridlock, the last-minute nature of the deal, and, notably, assumptions on revenues. S&P said “the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues.”

Standard and Poor’s now (rightly) assumes that one party isn’t serious about the debt and deficit, and given that every one of its presidential candidates save Jon Huntsman (R-Utah) denounced the debt deal, saying that defaulting simply didn’t matter that much, that’s unsurprising.

Why does the downgrade matter? Well, it might not matter much at first. But Treasury bonds are the base of the entire global financial system. If they’re not safe, what debt is? Moreover, a downgrade will likely make the interest rates on everything from credit cards to student loans (sorry, fellow students) rise.

So let’s recap: this committee won’t work because it doesn’t touch the primary driver of our debt growth, and its members aren’t going to consider revenues as part of a solution.

But wait! There’s more.

Remember how this committee has to cut from Democratic and Republican priorities? Both parties are going to scramble to find as much “fake math” as they can to “cut” from defense and domestic spending while not really cutting. Two think tank analysts (both liberal and conservative) gave this perspective when I interviewed them last Friday for Al-Jazeera. Lobbyists are going into high gear  to defend their projects, and defense in particular has a national constituency.

We needed to raise the debt ceiling. Many economists from left to right agreed it should simply be a clean raise , with no conditions attached; some applauded that it finally made Congress take debt reduction seriously; regardless, it was raised at the last minute with a deal of all spending cuts.

We didn’t default, and that’s a good thing.

We raised it past the election (with this trigger deal) so we don’t have to deal with another crisis before November 2012. The United States is still standing, and the world hasn’t quite entered financial panic.

Next up: the Bush tax cuts. Get ready for another fight.