…by citing the database…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform#Final_vote
…and note the five “steps” thereof:

$200 billion reduction in discretionary spending[13] with proposed cuts including reducing defense procurement by 15% and closing one third of overseas bases, eliminating earmarks, and cutting the federal work force by 10%.
$100 billion in increased tax revenues through various tax reform proposals,[13] such as introducing a 15 cent per gallon gasoline tax and eliminating or restricting a variety of tax deductions such as the home mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for employer-provided healthcare benefits.
Controlling health care costs by maintaining the Medicare cost controls associated with the recent health care reform legislation,[13] in addition to considering a public option and a further increase in the authority of Independent Payment Advisory Board.
A reduction in entitlements, including farm subsidies, civilian and military federal pensions and student loan subsidies.[13][14]
Modifications to the Social Security program to raise the payroll tax and the retirement age.[13]
measures they felt would stimulate economic growth, such as a cut in the corporate tax rate from 35% to a more internationally competitive 26%.[13][15][16]

This doesn’t cut discretionary spending sufficiently, and that’s why Ryan’s plan…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity
…is superior [albeit insufficient, as well, noting that it didn't address Social Security]:

Medicare & Medicaid reforms
Medicare: Starting in 2022, the proposal would end the current Medicare program for all Americans born after 1956 and replace it with a new program (still called Medicare) of somewhat voucher-like “premium support payment” and would increase the age of eligibility for Medicare:[7]
Starting in 2022, the age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months per year until it reached 67 in 2033.
After 2022, the current Medicare program ends for all people who have not already enrolled. People already enrolled in the current Medicare program prior to 2022 would continue to receive the program. New enrollees after 2022 would be entitled to a premium support payment to help them purchase private health insurance.
Beneficiaries of the premium support payments would choose among competing private insurance plans operating in a newly established Medicare exchange. Plans would have to insure all eligible people who apply and would have to charge the same premiums for enrollees of the same age. The premium support payments would go directly from the government to the private insurance companies that people selected.
The premium support payments would vary with the health status of the beneficiary. For the average 65-year-old, payment in 2022 is specified to be $8,000, which is approximately the same dollar amount as projected net federal spending per capita for 65-year-olds in traditional Medicare in that year.
Each year, the premium support payments would increase to reflect increases in the consumer price index (average inflation) and the fact that enrollees in Medicare tend to be less healthy and require more costly health care as they age.
The premium support payments to enrollees would also vary with the income of the beneficiary. The wealthiest 2% of enrollees would receive 30 percent of the premium support amount described above; the next 6% would receive 50 percent of the amount described above; and people in the remaining 92% the income distribution would receive the full premium support amount described above.
Eligibility for the traditional Medicare program would not change for people who are age 55 or older by the end of 2011 or for people who receive Medicare benefits through the Disability Insurance program prior to 2022. People covered under traditional Medicare would, beginning in 2022, have the option of switching to the premium support system.
The proposal would modify Medicaid as follows:[7]
Starting in 2013, the federal share of all Medicaid payments would be converted into block grants to be allocated to the states. The total dollar amount of the block grants would increase annually with population growth and with growth in the consumer price index (average inflation).
Starting in 2022, Medicaid block grant payments would be reduced to exclude projected spending for acute care services for elderly Medicaid beneficiaries.
States would have additional flexibility in designing their programs.
[edit]Repeal of 2010 health care legislation
2010 Health Care Legislation: The Republican proposal would make several changes to the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the health care provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.[7]
In general, key provisions of those laws that deal with insurance coverage would be repealed, including:
Repeal the requirement that most legal U.S. residents obtain health insurance;
Repeal the establishment of health insurance exchanges and subsidies for some individuals and families who purchase coverage through the exchanges;
Repeal the expansion of Medicaid coverage to include most nonelderly income below 138 percent of the federal poverty level;
Repeal penalties on certain employers if any of their workers obtain subsidized coverage through the exchanges; and
Repeal tax credits for small employers that offer health insurance.
The proposal would repeal the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act (CLASS Act) program for long-term care insurance, as well as a number of mandatory grant programs including funds for so-called high-risk pools, reinsurance for early retirees, and prevention and public health activities.
The proposal would repeal the provisions that created the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which has the explicit task of reducing the rate of growth in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality.
Canceling the expanded subsidies aimed at closing the ?coverage gap? in Medicare Part D, the so-called “Medicare doughnut hole.” The gap is a range of spending in which many Medicare beneficiaries are financially responsible for the entire cost of prescription drugs until the expense reaches the catastrophic coverage threshold.
[edit]Other healthcare reforms
Tort Reform: Several changes would be made to laws governing medical malpractice, including putting in place limits on noneconomic and punitive damages.[7]
[edit]Other spending cuts
The Path to Prosperity reduces other mandatory and discretionary spending from 12 percent of GDP in 2010 to about 6 percent in 2021. No proposals were specified that would generate that path. However, budget cuts would likely affect programs such as federal civilian and military retirement, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, and veterans? programs.[7]
[edit]Revenues/taxation
The instructions given to the CBO to evaluate the proposal specified revenue of 19% GDP, which is above the current level of around 15% GDP and slightly above the 30-year historical average of 18.2% GDP. The Path states separately that income tax rates would be lowered and selected tax expenditures (e.g., deductions, exemptions and subsidies) would be eliminated.[7]
[edit]Social Security
Social Security receives no changes in the proposal compared to the baseline. The CBO states that “spending on that program is projected to be relatively stable as a share of GDP from 2030 forward.”[7].

…by noting that Toomey has minimized revenue-enhancement [by dropping deductions rather than increasing taxes].

THEREFORE, although the continuing-resolution adopted today by the House didn’t cut anything, its effects would be trumped by whatever the Super-Committee would adopt.

If there is to be an impasse, at least BHO would be forced to cut entitlements immediately. Therefore, it appears the GOP should stay-the-course.