Posted on 07/19/2011 11:10:16 AM PDT by freespirited
The once moribund Senate “Gang of Six” regained new life Tuesday after Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn unexpectedly rejoined the group — and more senators are now coalescing around a new proposal that would cut the debt by as much as $3.7 trillion over the next decade.
Other top senators are also getting behind the plan, including Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the No. 3 Senate Republican, who told a group of senators Tuesday he would back the Gang of Six’s proposal, sources say. The fast-moving developments mean that elements of the proposal could influence the stalled talks to raise the debt-limit before the Aug. 2 deadline.
According to a copy of the plan, obtained by POLITICO, the group would impose a two-step legislative process that would make $500 billion worth of cuts immediately followed by a second bill to create a “fast-track process” that would propose a comprehensive bill aimed at dramatically restructuring tax and spending programs. The plan calls for changes to Social Security to move on a separate track, and establishes an elaborate procedure for considering the measures on the floor.
The $500 billion in cuts would come from a range of sources, including shifting to a new consumer price index to make cost-of-living adjustments to Social Security. The plan would impose statutory spending caps through 2015, freeze congressional pay and sell unused federal property.
To enact a comprehensive deficit plan, the group calls for congressional committees to report legislation within six months that would “deliver real deficit savings in entitlement programs over 10 years,” the plan says.
It calls on the Finance Committee to permanently reform or replace Medicare’s Sustainable Growth Rate - an outdated formula aimed at determining the amount to reimburse doctors for treating Medicare patients - by $298 billion.
The Finance Committee would be instructed to deliver “real deficit savings” through simplifying the tax code and raise as much as $1 trillion. It would do this by establishing three tax brackets with rates of 8-12 percent, 14-22 percent and 23-29 percent. It would permanently repeal the $1.7 trillion Alternative Minimum Tax. And it calls for establishing a single corporate tax rate, between 23 percent and 29 percent, and to move to a competitive territorial tax system.
Overall, the group claims it would result in a $1.5 trillion net tax decrease.
The group punts many of the specifics to other committees, which would be asked to find savings in discretionary and mandatory spending. This includes: $80 billion out of Armed Services; $70 billion out of Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; $65 billion out of Homeland Security and Government Affairs; $11 billion out of Agriculture; $11 billion out of Commerce; $6 billion out of Energy and Natural Resources. The Judiciary Committee would be asked to find savings through medical malpractice reform.
The group spent ample time proposing ways to expedite the legislative process should there be a stalemate in committee.
If any committee cannot propose cuts, it would would impose “across-the-board” cuts to programs under the panel’s jurisdiction. It would exempt programs aimed at low-income communities.
To avoid gridlock, floor amendments that upset the deficit-reduction goals would be ruled out of order. Any bill that could receive 60 votes would be held at the desk until the Senate considers the separate Social Security bill.
Once a comprehensive deficit plan has the votes, a measure aimed at ensuring 75-years of solvency of Social Security would head to the floor. The Finance Committee would be required to recommend the Social Security changes.
Senators in the Gang of Six - Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Coburn - discussed the proposal with 43 senators Tuesday morning on the first floor of the Senate, after more than six months of struggling to broker a deal.
Coburn left the group in May but suddenly rejoined after the group added $115 billion in additional health care cuts and included the provision allowing senators to circumvent the stalled committees.
“I’m back,” Coburn told the big group Tuesday, prompting a round of applause.
Bingo! Great post.
Sounds like wishful thinking ... until we have a GOP Senate and WH.
“deliver real deficit savings in entitlement programs over 10 years”
Why, praytell, are we supposed to believe this?
Gee. $3.7T. Where have we heard that number before?
The 2012 0bama budget proposal that was rejected unanimously:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/budget.pdf
0bama’s $3,800,000,000,000 budget request:
“The complexity of (his) budget make the numbers difficult to verify.”
“Overall, the debt would grow under his plan from just over $14 trillion now to nearly $21 trillion in five years.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/14/obama-unveils-37-trillion-budget-blueprint/
“deliver real deficit savings in entitlement programs over 10 years”
Why, praytell, are we supposed to believe this? And why 10 years? It’ll give us tax hikes right away, no doubt. I’ll never understand, outside of vote-grabbing, why cuts can’t come right away, too. Then again, I really don’t need any alternative explanation than vote-grabbing.
If we send it, they will spend it.
LLS
“The dems would never be able to go after Republicans on taxes again. They’d be cutting them for the “rich” even more than Bush did. It would pretty much be going back on their entire ideology.”
What are you talking about? No amount of facts can dislodge Dems as the party of “the little guy” and Pubs as lackies of Big Business Fat Cats. No matter how much Wall Street money fills Obama’s coffers, no matter how progressive Pubs make their tax rates, no matter how much raising taxes hurts the lowly Forgotten Man, nothing will change.
Politico covers this ‘DarkHorse’ lovefest but ignores ‘Fast and Furious’.
“Simplify the tax code by reducing the number of tax expenditures and reducing individual
tax rates, by establishing three tax brackets with rates of 8–12 percent, 14–22 percent,and 23–29 percent.”
“Simplify the tax code by reducing the number of tax expenditures and reducing individual
tax rates, by establishing three tax brackets with rates of 8–12 percent, 14–22 percent,and 23–29 percent.”
“Simplify the tax code by reducing the number of tax expenditures and reducing individual
tax rates, by establishing three tax brackets with rates of 8–12 percent, 14–22 percent,and 23–29 percent.”
“So, instead of going a further $17 trillion into debt in the next 10 years, we’ll only go $13.3 trillion more?”
No, like always, they’ll see the $3+ trillion, if it actually comes to pass, as a cushion for criticism of the perpetual motion machine that is the U.S. budget. In fact, they’ll see it as their duty to spend even more than they were otherwise going to to make up for the cuts. That’s how it works. And you can’t say anything about it, cause, hey, they gave you your cuts, you greedy Fat Cat.
“Hold on there, pal. What are you complaining about? I know debt is bigger than annual GDP, but we cut out $3 trillion, so you have nothing more to say to us.”
“including shifting to a new consumer price index to make cost-of-living adjustments to Social Security. “
I’ve read this can cut SS payments by as much as $700 per month. If so, R’s will get the blame on this, and it will sink the R party for decades to come.
The Dems and the media will posture it as if the R’s shifted money from the “lockbox” to kill Granny for the rich.
I don’t expect I will ever see SS. I never expected to really “retire” in any sense of the word either, but there are going to be a ton of folks already on fixed income, who have given everything to this nation, who are going to be hurt like no tomorrow.
If I understand correctly, yes, something like that.
Do you recall where you read that? My understanding is that it affects only the cost of living increase. For example if the increase would be 3% under the current method of calculation, it might be reduced to 2.2% under the new one. That will lower benefits, but hardly by 700 bucks a month.
I don’t get it either. How can Coburn expect anyone to take his plan if he’s so quick to jump ship?
“raise as much as $1 trillion.”
You taxes will rise to meet your share of that.
Oh, but they mis-printed “at least” LOL!
It’s a perfect beltway answer: more spending, more debt. more promises.
This is our last chance to save the republic. No debt extension. Cut govt off.
Like you, I'm suspicious.
But where in the article does it say they plan to raise taxes on anybody?
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.