Gang of Six gambit revives spending shell game (Actual cuts only $1.2 Trillion- not $3.7 Trillion)

American Thinker ^ | July 20, 2011 | Thomas Lifson

[Qbert]

The combined forces of Democrats, the liberal media, and squishy Republicans are working to stampede Republicans into ratifying the expansion of the federal government from an average of under 20% of GDP up to 25%, where it stands after two and a half years of Obama. This is being done in the guise of the Gang of Six Plan (summary here), based on the Simpson-Bowles Commission, whose work was snubbed by President Obama when it was delivered several months ago.

The script being played out today is by now familiar in the age of Obama. Rather than confront problems in a timely manner, Obama waits until a crisis looms, scare-mongers about a nonexistent "crisis" (in this case, alleged "default" even though there is sufficient federal revenue to service debt and cover Social Security and Defense), and seeks to stampede Republicans into a "compromise" in which they provide real and immediate concessions in return for vague promises of something good happening sometime in the future.

The Gang claims "savings" of $3.7 trillion over ten years, but Sen. Jeff Sessions, who has seen the plan scores the actual cuts at 1.2 trillion. But "savings" promised beyond the current Congress are meaningless, since no Congress can obligate a future Congress's ability to spend )or do anything else). In return, they are asked to buy into higher taxes, many of them in the form of "tax reform" eliminating "loopholes" such as the mortgage interest deduction. (If you think housing prices have crashed, just wait until mortgages are no longer deductible. I can think of no better way to further devastate the ressidential construction industry and the personal wealth of the middle class.)

Daniel Mitchell of Cato provides a guide what the GOP is being asked to accept as "compromise."

[b4its2late]

It’s a gang all right.

[rokkitapps]

Every time I hear a plan cuts ‘X’ amount, I always wait to hear “over X years” ... It is usually over 10+ years... why not just come out with a plan that cuts 100 trillion over 50 years? sounds even better...

just tell me what they are going to cut this year, anything after 2012 is another congress.

[Loyal Buckeye]

The ‘status quo’ plan. Meaningless in the whole scheme of things.

[EGPWS]

But "savings" promised beyond the current Congress are meaningless,...

Yep, it's called "passing the baton" to the next chump in office or more commonly known as "kicking the can down the road".

[Rennes Templar]

I’m thinking it might be better for the GOP to cave now and avoid media crucifixion. Then elect Palin, and turn this gov’t upside down and shake it out.

[Just mythoughts]

The Gang claims "savings" of $3.7 trillion over ten years, but Sen. Jeff Sessions, who has seen the plan scores the actual cuts at 1.2 trillion. But "savings" promised beyond the current Congress are meaningless, since no Congress can obligate a future Congress's ability to spend )or do anything else). In return, they are asked to buy into higher taxes, many of them in the form of "tax reform" eliminating "loopholes" such as the mortgage interest deduction. (If you think housing prices have crashed, just wait until mortgages are no longer deductible. I can think of no better way to further devastate the ressidential construction industry and the personal wealth of the middle class.)

IF this is the case, then how did Nanny the red Pewlouise tie crying Boehner's hands with some stupid rule he claims he cannot break to end the funding for BamBamcare?

[marstegreg]

Heads will roll. ( I mean that in the nicest way possible)

[EGPWS]

Speaking of spending, why is there no information, anywhere in the summary document, showing how big government will be five years from now? Ten years from now? The perhaps-all-too-convenient absence of this critical information should set off alarm bells.

Good point and of course we ALL know why it isn't being shown.

[Libloather]

Same leftist crap, different day when Turbin gets involved.

[Principled]

why not just come out with a plan that cuts 100 trillion over 50 years?

I wish someone would come out with such a plan - one "saving 198 Trillion over 900 years" just to make such a point.

[b4its2late]

The gang of 6 gets all the headlines. I wonder what the other 44 think? Lot’s of egos going on there...

[Siena Dreaming]

Dick Durbin is one of the creepiest members of Congress.

[Brandonmark]

[Qbert]

"why not just come out with a plan that cuts 100 trillion over 50 years?"

- "I wish someone would come out with such a plan - one "saving 198 Trillion over 900 years" just to make such a point."

Or tell them if they agree to make real cuts of $20 Trillion in the next four years, we will "promise" to agree to raise taxes... in 2032.

[Principled]

even better ;)

[Revel]

Shhhhhh....Don’t tell the sheeple. They think this is a great bill.

Actually the best bill would be no bill at all. Because if the debt limit is not raised then what you have is an instant balanced budget. Nothing more and nothing less. Lots of pain for awhile, but at least that pain is survivable.

What is coming at the end of the current borrowing game will not be survivable. It will spell economic collapse, and all the other kinds of collapse that will follow.

[not2worry]

I think “flash mob” rather than “gang” reflects the intentions of these six political hacks.

[ken5050]

Why then has Coburn signed onto this proposal? That’s what I don’t get..

[WOSG]

Here is my Gang of One spending plan:
Cut spending from $3,700 billion to $3,400 billion next year. 10% cut

KEEP IT AT $3400 billion for the next 10 years. 0% increase.

That’s $34 trillion in spending over 10 years.

Real cuts: $300 billion.
Washington ‘scored cut’ on this: $11 TRILLION!!!

Obama’s plan increases spending by $11 trillion over what you would do if you just kept spending the same every year.