Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Potential "Gang of Six" Senate "Compromise" Debt Ceiling Plan Seems Acceptable on Its Face. But Sue Me For Being Plenty Suspicious...


The "Gang of Six" ("GO6"), BTW, is an ever-changing group of so-called "moderate" and/or "pragmatic" Senators in both parties (now actually with 7 members) who in the past have purported "to put partisan divides aside" to come up with compromises that other Senators have sometimes been able to sign off on. (Yes, I'm ignoring today's House GOP passage of "Cut, Cap & Balance" since that thing's dead in the Senate).

Today, this "Gang of Six" announced a plan on the debt ceiling issue that appears to have some general popularity in the Senate at large and with Obama himself.

On its face, the GO6 plan seems perfectly acceptable to me as a first step in serious debt and deficit reduction. To wit:

-The net deficit reduction and cuts to the national debt over 10 years would reportedly be $3.7 trillion. A somewhat legitimate starting point, although a bit concerning is that much of those cuts are not specific but rather would be farmed out to Congressional committees to "come up with" in the future.

-$500 billion in more-specific immediate budget cuts.

-The plan reportedly contemplates a coupling of comprehensive elimination of tax deductions (a.k.a. "loopholes") with across-the-board tax rate cuts on all tax brackets, including reducing the top tax bracket of the so-called "millionaires and billionaires" from 35% to 29%.

-The GO6 plan claims that the result of those tax cuts and tax deduction eliminations would be a $1.5 trillion net tax decrease.

-Presumably the debt ceiling would be increased as a trade off for these various measures.

SO, that's it, as best as I can cobble together so far. But Obama saying today he's in favor of this plan gives me plenty of reason to pause, because I've yet to see that individual in nearly 3 years ever sign off on much of any legislation that wasn't completely to his political advantage (or, at the very least, just a politically motivated surrender when left with no other choice -- see the extension of the "Bush" tax rates at the end of 2010).

Also, the leftist 20 percenter blogosphere seems very silent on this plan tonight, which is also very odd. So I'm very suspicious.

My suspicions lie in three areas. First, there's probably something here that doesn't meet the eye. Something the GO6 isn't disclosing. Something highly advantageous to the leftist 20 percenters that is not being reported.

Second, this GO6 plan may be a total non-starter in the much more right-wing House. If the plan is what it appears to be, it seems inherently reasonable. Perhaps Obama is banking on the House killing it, giving him the high ground to say that the GOP is blocking a reasonable plan. And if that happens, he'd actually be right (if the plan is what it seems), although I'd also say in that instance that he's only supporting it because he knew the House would not.

Third, there's the possibility that Obama is finally making what so many predicted following the 2010 election outcome: A bona fide move towards the center, like Bill Clinton did after 1994, calculated to boost his re-election possibilities.

But I really don't care a whole lot about these various political considerations apart from just having fun with political analysis. As an Independent, my bottom line is: Is the measure/plan reasonable and acceptable. If so, I'll support it regardless of whom it benefits politically. And if this GO6 plan is what it appears to be (which it may well not be -- let's keep following this in the days to come), then it is something that I will support.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59345.html

12 comments:

  1. Postscript: I violated my general rule about only one post a day. I wrote the Steve Wynn post earlier today, but then the "Gang of Six" story broke late today. As they say in my sleazy line of work, every rule has its exception, and so does my "one post a day rule": Sometimes a new story breaks late that requires me not to wait a day to comment on it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Okay, so forgive me for being so dumb, but....I can see how cutting out loopholes will increase the taxes paid, but if they cut taxes across all brackets, won't that just kinda offset the loopholes the get rid of? I guess I just don't understand the debt ceiling, huh?! ha!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The various tax measures are purportedly calculated to raise additional revenue in the end to put towards deficit reduction, in addition to spending cuts. Ultimately, this plan probably fails because (among other reasons) the leftists hate the idea of a cut in tax rates and the right-wingers don't want any elimination of tax deductions. Obama and some democrat party powerbrokers like Pelosi and Reid may be on board with this plan, but I've already seen plenty of leftist 20 percenter opposition out there. Plus the right-winger tea partiers hate it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We've got to get a grip somehow - one of our problems is that we have too many people getting assistance, when I really think some of them could work! Too many people need too much help and those people keep breeding more people who need help! Dennis Miller said it best when he said, "We want to help the helpless, we don't give a shit about the clueless!"

    Of course, I'm over-generalizing and the problem is much bigger than this one thing, but honestly, it seems that the gap between the number of workers and the number of assisted people is getting smaller - what happens when there aren't enough people working to take care of the ones who don't/can't? Are we there yet?

    Whoo, quite a ramble there, sorry Rager!

    ReplyDelete
  5. You put your finger on a significant problem. Only about half the American population pays any income taxes at the end of the day. We are seeing an incessant transformation of America into a much more left-wing, quasi-socialist state where a majority of the population will eventually look to federal government programs for their survival. Not there yet, but that's how it's trending.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think we should require women on welfare to get a birth control shot before she can collect her assistance....it's not unreasonable to ask her to not get pregnant again until she can take care of herself and her kid without government assistance. I realize that's probably denying her some inalienable right, but she can have all the sex she wants, she just shouldn't have more babies until she's on her own. It would seem that society is almost encouraging her to have more babies....more babies = more money!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm thinking of becoming a self-induced welfare beneficiary. As noted in the right sidebar, that would help to get me off the Janet Napolitano terrorism watch list (since I'm a white middle class member at present). I figure there's little I can do about the white part, but we can take care of that middle class description!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think you're on to something here Rager! At some point, it won't pay any of us worker-bees to actually work....it'll be cheaper tax wise and easier stress wise to just stay home and let the government take care of us....I get stress induced migraines, can I get a check for that? =)

    ReplyDelete
  9. The same thing used to occur back when the top earners in the U.S. used to be taxed at 90% after a certain amount. The rich would literally vegetate and try to stop earning once they reached that point each year. Reagan talked about this extensively from his acting career. I'm no huge Reagan fan, but he had a point on this one. Strip a man of a motivation to be productive, and he is almost certain to not be productive.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Truer words have never been spoken!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Or as a democrat party sleaze would say: I'm a racist.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And that's why we call them democrat party sleazes =)

    ReplyDelete