« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

53+7 = Obama and Democrats winning in 2012

While trying to upstage today’s vote on cut-cap-balance, initial reports emerging from the United States Senate point to some sort of deal being pasted together from the “Gang of Six” talks which would reduce the deficit by 3.5 trillion over ten years.

Seventy five percent would come from cuts from a broad range of programs, including defense. Twenty five percent (or 1.2 trillion) will come from additional revenue – whatever that means. Additional details are sketchy, with the exception that the CBO is supposed to score the plan as a tax cut.

I am highly skeptical of the plan and will withhold my personal judgement on the matter until I have read and analyzed it. Until then I am unsure if it is another “1986 trick” in which Democrats get tax increases and expanded government with Republicans and America taking the fall. To do so is unacceptable.

Early reports have the proposed frame work getting more than sixty votes. While that may be true, the real indicator is where the majority of the votes are coming from and what is in the actual proposal.

Many of us grass roots type are fine with a proposal that gets us eighty percent of what we want. However, it is also true that tax hikes are completely unacceptable – especially on the one trillion dollar level.

It is equally true that if such a proposal garners more Democrat than Republican votes, voters would more than likely either not participate in 2012 or go third party. This gives Democrats a free pass to win both the Presidency and perhaps recapture the House of Representatives.

It should be made clear that any such “deal” is not a pass in the 2012 elections on the subject matter and falls still short of what is needed – a balanced budget amendment coupled with entitlement reform.

However. If the proposal garners a large portion of conservatives and has actual merit, then it may at least be an initial stepping stone toward the reform we need.

Until then numbers are in and details are fleshed out I remain skeptical and would like to warn those Republicans involved in the process: Fifty three plus seven equals epic failure. Passing a legislation which restrains government spending is win.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Ask a simple question: What will the spending be in FY 2012, FY 2013, FY 2014.

    Does it cut spending by 20%? 10%? 5%? Not at all?!?

    Details on spending cuts are NOT laid out. For a simple reason: THEY ARE NOT THERE. They promise $500 billion by capping spending *growth*.

    Contrary to prior statements, this is NOT substantial. Not at all. Coburn’s $9T is the right ballpark.

    • Paul Seale

      Cant find details. Sounds good from what Ive read.

      Coburn rejoined the Go6 today as this was announced – so I wonder. I pray it isnt dead.

      Good questions I am asking, though.

      Is it a good start or is it a trap designed to give the President and Democrats a pass for the 2012 elections?

      I am open to the legislation if it does what it needs to.

      Time will tell. This is why I want details.

      • cordpt

        is available on his website.

        http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=1d817708-76ed-4b2b-9cc2-076415409d44

      • runner12

        It is nothing more than a scam. Obama came out in support of it today, if that tells you anything. Hannity just pulled news off the wire that Reuters had reported that Moody’s was stating that neither the McConnell plan nor the zgang of Six plan eould reduce the deficit enough to avoid a downgrade of US rating.

        • runner12

          the Gang of Six plan would reduce the deficit enough to avoid a downgrade in US rating. Darn those typos!

        • Paul Seale

          So how much must we trim?

          If there is one good note about the report, it proves that the problem isnt so much raising the debt limit, its the spending.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Just my speculation, but any serious entitlement reform will not get liberal support.
    The lowering of tax rates is good, but will not get liberal support.

    Conservatives and progressives are too far apart, so anything done to placate progressives will doom it in the House.

  • chrysostom15

    For starters, its overall impact on taxes is to cut them. Over 1 year, 5 years, or 10 years, the gange of six ends up cutting the projected taxes.

    First, it gets rid of the alternative minimum tax. Second, it lowers the corporate tax rate. These are balanced out with removing some exemptions for corporations, but total tax revenues are reduced from official projections.

    Second, the bill would provide for entitlement reform; which is critical.

    Third, the bill provides for cuts all across government. It includes specific cuts, and if committes cannot agree to where to cut, has a provision to make the cut accross the board.

    Not perfect, but this a deal that would be a start in the right direction.

    I understand that many may think the cuts are not deep enough. However, they are better than nothing; and infact, are substancial. When was the last time Social Security benefits were cut? NEVER.

    This bill, for the first time in history, would curb social security spending; but changing the formula for cost of living increases.

    I understand that some may object that it cuts taxes; but I would think those people would be liberals; not conservatives.

  • chrysostom15

    For starters, its overall impact on taxes is to cut them. Over 1 year, 5 years, or 10 years, the gange of six ends up cutting the projected taxes.

    First, it gets rid of the alternative minimum tax. Second, it lowers the corporate tax rate. These are balanced out with removing some exemptions for corporations, but total tax revenues are reduced from official projections.

    Second, the bill would provide for entitlement reform; which is critical.

    Third, the bill provides for cuts all across government. It includes specific cuts, and if committes cannot agree to where to cut, has a provision to make the cut accross the board.

    Not perfect, but this a deal that would be a start in the right direction.

    I understand that many may think the cuts are not deep enough. However, they are better than nothing; and infact, are substancial. When was the last time Social Security benefits were cut? NEVER.

    This bill, for the first time in history, would curb social security spending; but changing the formula for cost of living increases.

    I understand that some may object that it cuts taxes; but I would think those people would be liberals; not conservatives.

  • Paul Seale

    I want to see the details and where those 1 trillion in revenues are coming from.

    Stephen Hays from the Weekly Standard just noted on twitter that the plan is a frame work and not serious – so that raises some doubts.

    I also wonder about the timing of the announcement. Could the timing wait a day or so after the cut-cap-balance vote? Or is the President and Democrats worried that momentum might build for a balanced budget amendment?

    Again, I am not saying “no” because I havent seen the plan yet.

    I am highly skeptical and need to see the details and understand how this isnt a 1986 (or 1991) redux of Democrats trying to pull the football away from us just as we try to kick it.

    Any information (honest details) would be welcome.

    thanks!

  • Scope

    that any spending legislation that crosses over into new Congressional sessions are worthless at best. With a new Congress in 2013, whoever has the majority, and the WH can change every part of this or any plan like it, that covers a ten year period to accomplish it’s goals.

    The six pack may find success in the Senate, where the worst of our RINO’s reside, but, it is unlikely that the House will pass it also. If it is good enough to gain Democrat support, it is probably a very bad deal for conservatives.

    I was under the impression that any spending measures had to start in the House. Why is the Senate now involved in the job the House is responsible for? I understand that the Senate has the ability to say yea or nay on raising the debt ceiling, but, spending proposals is not their jurisdiction before being passed in the house.

  • Paul Seale

    I want to know the details, I wont just dismiss the plan, unless it blatantly increases taxes and passes off any real cuts. This is why we need details and for the CBO to score the plan.

    However why is the senate trying to craft something which is ultimately the responsibility of the House of Representatives? Dont know.

    The Senate has a hand the in the process and must pass a budget.. maybe if the House and Senate both pass something it will be worked out in conference? Dont know.

    Of course as I stated before – are there any details or is it just something cobbled together to upstage cut-cap-balance?

  • Scope

    where the 1 trillion of increased revenue is coming from. I guess we will know soon enough.

  • YnotNOW

    And we cannot really tell until the details are fleshed out. Right now I am not so very optimistic as you are because of my understanding of your exact 3 points:

    First, I understand that it is not proposing a next tax decrease, but a net tax increase (lower rates, but eliminate/phase-out deductions that more than make up the revenue). The only way they could call this a tax cut is to compare it to a baseline of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

    Second, it does not provide substantive entitlement reform. tweaking the CPI growth rate has some merit, but is a drop in the bucket.

    Third, the bill does NOT provide enough specifics on cutting discretionary spending to provide much confidence, and instead passes the buck to more committees that “we promise” will cut. I’ve heard that before.

    I may be pleasantly surprised, but right now there is not a lot of justification for optimism.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    “For starters, its overall impact on taxes is to cut them.”

    Please do not get fooled by the double-counting and credit-taking for AMT and Bush-tax-cuts. If we simple KEPT TAXES AS THEY ARE TODAY, it would be trillions less than the gang of 6 tax plan.

    Consider that.

    http://keithhennessey.com/2011/07/21/oppose-the-gang-of-six/
    “The Gang of Six plan would increase taxes by $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years relative to current policy. That?s roughly a 6.5 percent increase in total taxation.

    Put another way, the Gang of Six plan raises taxes $830 B more than would President Obama?s February budget.”

    Oh … AND … they DONT repeal any of the Obamacare taxes. Why arent we demanding that repeal? Why is even a single Republican considering it acceptable to buy into a plan that locks Obamacare in place forever?

  • acat

    The only question is whether it will be a disaster for the Dems or for the GOP or for Conservatives….

    I fail to see how it could *not* be a disaster for Conservatives; they’re included for completeness.

    Mew

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    It won’t even be ready in time! That’s what we get for leaving it up to the 800 Club.

  • YnotNOW

    only because they won’t have anything to vote on, and the vote would not pass even if they drafted a bill.
    Thin gruel for optimism, but I guess I’ll take what I can get at this stage….