It’s kind of weird that Barack Obama and Tom Coburn are good friends. I haven’t yet seen the president derive any benefit out of the friendship. And I really don’t feel comfortable about Coburn being part of this Gang of Six that we’re probably going to be hearing a lot about in the coming months. The Gang of Six is group of three Democratic senators (Warner of Virginia, Conrad of North Dakota, and Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois) and three Republican senators (Chambliss of Georgia, Crapo of Idaho, and Coburn of Oklahoma) who are trying to work out some grand bargain on reducing our massive debts. It’s not a very promising group, as only Durbin can reasonably be described as a progressive and he’s really there to do the White House’s bidding.
It’s not all bad, though. For example, Chambliss seems capable of thinking independently:
Chambliss on Monday called [Rep. Paul] Ryan’s plan unworkable because it cuts spending drastically but does not raise taxes, something Democrats say must be part of any long-term deficit reduction package, according to Bloomberg News.
Now, I know this group of senators are going to propose something I don’t like. But what’s going to be interesting, if they can actually agree on something and it isn’t immediately dismissed by the White House, is if the endorsement of three very conservative Republicans will be worth something with the rest of the Republican caucus. If Tom Freakin’ Coburn says it’s a good plan, that has to count for something with the hard right, right?
So far, I’ve been operating on the basic assumption that this Congress will never agree on a big bill, regardless of its content. On a bill that touches entitlements? Not a chance.
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe this Gang of Six will actually propose something that can pass. It seems unlikely, but I guess there is a possibility. I’m pretty sure that I hope they don’t
You forgot one thing, Boo. I have no doubt it will pass the Senate. It will not pass the House. The Tan Man just came out today and said no to any tax increases, whatsoever.
I think it’s weird that they are friends too and Coburn is a total ass but I don’t agree with your comment, “I haven’t yet seen the president derive any benefit out of the friendship. ” It’s irrelevant. In fact they are probably friends because neither one of them is expecting any benefit from it. Sometimes that happens…maybe not in Washington or in Philadelphia though.
p.s. I went to college outside Philly.
Right outside Philly.
I kind of feel like it might be better for the country as a whole (and everyone that isn’t wealthy) if they totally fail to pass anything. I have no confidence that this White House or enough Senators will say ‘no’ to something that screws the poor and/or middle class for the benefit of the rich. I really wish I didn’t feel this way.
doesn’t say “NO” to anything.
Oh yeah, I forgot about single payer.
Not sure I share any faith in Chambliss. He’s been repeating Laffer curve nonsense about the magical and mythical ability of tax rate cuts to increase revenue. We’ll see, but if the “independent” thinking from the GOP willfully ignores the lessons of Clinton and cites W. as proof tax rate cuts work, we’re in for major disappointment.
I am sure that everything will work out for the best. With all the fine upstanding public servants in congress and the WH looking out for our interests, what could possibly go wrong?
nalbar
Yes they will get somewhere. And I think the plan is to force that plan on the House like the Senate did health care reform. Which is only marginally better than the House forcing its plan on the Senate.
I think that Mitch McConnell has suddenly discovered that Boehner’s house very well would fail to pass a debt ceiling bill if they didn’t get their immediate gratification. I’m not sure how a Gang of Six maneuver is going to forestall that but someone must have some ideas, which I guess have to do with House Democrats bending once again and joining a Republican-Democratic coalition against the Tea Party.
I’m thinking that they don’t have to agree as long as Congress can get past the debt ceiling impasse. And in October, government by continuing resolution continues.
Durbin said a few months ago that Social Security has to be on the table. But, appantly the Bush Tax Cuts are off the table. I think Durbin has switched partys and now runs with his “good friend”, Mark Kirk.
After days of hyperventilating from the left that Obama is forcing addicts to reuse needles and taking food out of the mouths of starving babies and back slapping on the right that the orange man out smarted the stupid Negro, turns out actual cuts may be as liitle as $8B. Is it really possible that a Black man with a Muslim name who somehow got himself elected Predident of the United States after only two years in federal office and two men who have been legislating longer than most bloggers have been alive had the political acumen and skill to out wit the opposition? Can it be they know more than unemployed or barely employed anonymous liberal bloggers?
I made that point over the weekend. A lot of the spending cuts aren’t really spending cuts.
…because Chambliss is intentionally bamboozling people, and the press won’t call him out on it. The Georgia Senator yesterday, on CNN:
“What we are looking at proposing is actually a reduction in corporate rates and personal individual income tax rates, which will put more money in people’s pockets and we’re going to do that with the reduction in tax expenditures. Every time we’ve done that in years past whether it was under President Reagan or President Bush we have seen revenues increase.”
Of course, Reagan and Bush steeply increased Federal budget deficits, while Clinton’s raising of the top marginal tax rates was followed by a booming economy and quickly associated budget surpluses. And what’s the point of this exercise, to minimally increase revenues or SHRINK THE DEFICIT?
Unfortunately, we had a Democratic “Gang Of Six” member, Warner, involved in the same interview, and he couldn’t be bothered to point this out. He’s really awful.
In its basic formulation, Chambliss’ position regarding revenues is not significantly different from Ryan’s. It’s the same magical Randian crap. Saxby merely avoids being as publicly insane as Ryan is on the slashing of expenses. I don’t trust him there, though.
If they weren’t trying to take advantage of the very real opportunity they have gained from having just about enough conservative Democrats in the room to pass a horrible budget out of the Senate, I bet all three Republicans would be fully endorsing Ryan’s budget. It’s serious, you know.
All this means that the last sentence of your post is a proper conclusion. I’d encourage you to lose the first four words of that sentence.
Yep. Every Republican who talks about raising revenue means either magically raising revenue through tax cuts, which didn’t work for Reagan, or (best-case scenario) eliminating tax loopholes. But even the ones who take the latter course usually want to accompany loophole elimination with reductions in actual rates, thus not really being revenue neutral.
That last sentence should read “thus not really raising revenues.”
And the tax expenditures aka deductions they will eliminate, like mortgage and property tax deductions, are VERY important to middle and upper middle class taxpayers, but mostly irrelevant to the top sliver. So even a revenue raising bill that gets there with a broader base (fewer deductions) with lower rates – easily done – is simply a tax cut on for the VERY top paid for with a tax increase on the bottom 99%.
Today the folks who were complaining about the FY 2011 budget deal have discovered a central fact. Failing to come to a resolution reduces the deficit in the long term exactly because the law now expires the Bush tax cuts. And letting them expire is popular.
All the Gang of Six have to do is make it clear that the Republicans are standing up for the privileges of the wealthy instead of wanting to reduce the deficit. To provide popular backing that prevents Republicans from taking hostages like they did last year to prevent expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
That’s not the way that it likely will be played, but that path is there.