Posted on 07/18/2011 8:46:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Late last week, it looked like Tom Coburn might rejoin the Gang of Six in the Senate, which restarted their efforts to find a compromise on the budget as the debt-ceiling limit debate rages. Today, however, Coburn will become a Gang of One by releasing his own plan to reduce the deficit by twice the amount of the Paul Ryan plan. Unlike Ryan, Coburn plans on increasing federal revenues, but through reform of the tax code:
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said Sunday the federal government can save $1 trillion though tax reform, a proposal that will put him at odds with some GOP colleagues.
Coburn plans to unveil a $9 trillion deficit-reduction package Monday that would give lawmakers a menu of policy options to reduce the deficit.
Coburn has suggested $1 trillion in savings could come from eliminating special tax breaks, such as the tax subsidy for ethanol, which he has fought to end.
“We can increase revenues by adjusting the tax code and lowering it,” Coburn said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday morning. “We can save over $1 trillion doing that.”
Coburn’s plan also relies on cutting one trillion dollars from the Pentagon’s budget over the next ten years. That would be greater than a 10% reduction in spending at the Pentagon, a component that won’t make his fellow Republicans very happy, even if it does provide a “skin in the game” argument to conduct seven trillion dollars of cuts elsewhere, in discretionary and entitlement spending.
Coburn calls it “common sense” that the Pentagon’s budget can be reduced by this amount, but it’s only “common sense” if the cuts come as part of a redefinition of the use and extent of American military power around the globe. We can’t fight three wars and expect to literally decimate defense spending over the next decade, and we probably can’t afford our heavy investment in Europe, either. If those cuts come as part of a rethinking of America’s political and military approach, then it’s certainly possible, but it will mean a serious rethinking of our role in global security.
That’s exactly the approach that Coburn does take with federal revenues. Instead of just hiking taxes or only “closing loopholes,” Coburn wants to lower overall rates while flattening and simplifying the system. That takes some of the sting out of revenue increases and gives both parties something to win. Republicans get their tax reform and simplification, and Democrats get to take credit for more “fairness” through the elimination of arcane tax deductions, especially in the corporate tax code. That kind of compromise has been easily achievable — and almost entirely ignored by the White House.
When Coburn unveils his plan later today, he will have trumped his former Gang of Six colleagues and could perhaps vault to the front of the debate over the debt and deficits. The Gang is still mulling over its options, and the Senate has now gone 809 days without passing a budget plan at all. The White House still won’t offer specifics for a resolution to the impasse. So far, it seems all of the ideas have come from the Republicans, while Democrats dither and delay.
Me like.
NOTHING good comes from those “gangs”.
Soory not impressed. Any plan that’s over 10 years instead of cutting now is pure BS.
Isn't that code for tax increases?
They need to go back to Boehner's original statement..give Obama a debt increase equal to or more than the amount of spendign cuts in the next two years..period.
How can lowering it mean increasing it?
RE: Any plan that’s over 10 years instead of cutting now is pure BS.
With Senate still under Dem control and the White House under Obama, cutting anything of significance *now* is near impossible.
Let's get them home NOW! And start those savings.
He mentioned cutting tax subsidies for ethanol. I could agree to that!
Cut sending money overseas to other nations; stop paying welfare to illegal aliens; cut subsidies to all different kinds of businesses - before we know it, it could all add up to billions.
>> “We can increase revenues by adjusting the tax code and lowering it,”
>> Isn’t that code for tax increases?
Sure it is. But more precisely, it’s code for “increase taxes on everyone but YOU PERSONALLY {wink wink nudge nudge}.”
I believe lowering the tax code means one pays more...
RE: Cut sending money overseas to other nations; stop paying welfare to illegal aliens; cut subsidies to all different kinds of businesses - before we know it, it could all add up to billions.
_______________________________________________________________________
Yes they will BUT... If we refuse to touch/reform the big three -— Social Security, Meidcare and Medicaid, it will still not amount to much in our budget.
a flat tax or nat retail sales tax would do it - lower all marginal rates, increase the number of payers, and get the economy moving in the right direction.
i said it on another thread today - i think oZero is tanking us on purpose. He won’t agree to anything that will help. He’ll only push things that make it worse.
Coburn is a real POS lately. Derides the Tea Party and constituents to defend Nancy Pelosi as a “Nice Person”. Joins these “Gang for Concessions to Rats” groups and now wants $1 Trillion in tax increases.
Blow it out your ear Coburn. You are totally untrustworthy anymore.
It took only a few "not exactly's" from politicians to put us into this situation in the first place.
They need to cut the crap and get real and take care of our financial issues this time once and for all, up front and out in the open so we the public understand completely.
2012 will come around fast, they had better not mess this one up.
Call...and call again...DC is out of control...someone has got to stand up.
toll free number
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2750218/posts?page=3
A flat tax would still leave the door open for politicians to hand out exemptions and put us right back into the same boat again where only a select few pay all the taxes.
A sales tax would force ALL to pay regardless of status.
Those who purchase must pay.
“Isn’t that code for tax increases?”
YES!
And I’m ALL for it.
When conservatives use words like “broadening the base” and “flattening the rates”, they usually mean more people will be paying and fewer will be getting a free federal ride as do half the population today.
Rush used to joke about “raising taxes on the poor”. But that is EXACTLY what needs to be done. Not for the sake of generating more revenue. But for the simple purpose of restraining their seemingly endless lust for other peoples money.
Closing Richie Rich loopholes and such is great too as part of a simplification strategy. But taxing the tit suckers is a way to get them to at least come up for air.
In other words:
NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.