Gang of Six plan gets boost in House, still faces uphill battle

UPDATED 12:32 p.m. ET

Rep. Frank Wolf

/ GETTY

A bipartisan plan to cut the deficit over the long-term got a boost in the House of Representatives within hours after a more conservative plan with no chance of becoming law was approved by the chamber, though it still faces a tough road ahead.

A pair of House lawmakers called for a vote on the so-called "Gang of Six" proposal, which re-emerged in the Senate Tuesday as a possible alternative way to raise the amount of money the U.S. can legally borrow by August 2.

The plan, which could reduce the deficit by about $3.7 trillion over the next ten years, was welcomed by President Obama on Tuesday.

Most economists, including Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, and the Obama administration have warned of economic calamity if the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling is not raised in less than two weeks.

Lawmakers from both parties want to use the threat of that deadline to come to a larger agreement that would reduce the deficit going forward. But that deal has been elusive as the two sides dug in their heels.

Republican Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia and Democratic Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee urged House Speaker John Boehner to schedule a vote on the Senate plan, which includes about $1 trillion in higher revenue for the government. Many details of the plan are still to be determined.

"We applaud this effort and ask that you provide the opportunity to vote on this proposal as part of any request for an increase in the debt ceiling before the Aug. 2 debt ceiling deadline," Wolf and Cooper wrote in the letter dated Tuesday.

"The Gang of Six plan is bitter medicine and, while not perfect, could restore our fiscal health," Wolf and Cooper wrote, "there is never a convenient time to make tough decisions, but the longer we put off fixing the problem, the worse the medicine will be."

Will the Return of the Gang of Six End the Debt Ceiling Showdown?

President Obama on Tuesday offered praise for the Senate proposal, telling reporters that he thinks "we're now seeing a potential for a bipartisan consensus."

The proposal, backed by seven senators (one joined the original half dozen), still faces an uphill climb in the House, where conservative Tea Party members who want to shrink the size of government are opposed to anything that would bring more money into government coffers to balance the budget. Roughly $1 trillion of the savings in the "Gang of Six" plan would come from new tax revenue.

The House on Tuesday approved their "cut, cap and balance" plan by a vote of 234 to 190. That vote, however, was mostly symbolic: because any spending cuts would be contingent on the passage of a constitutional amendment, the bill would require approval from two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the Democrat-dominated Senate, achieving that support is likely impossible.

House Republican leaders did not immediately pronounce the plan dead on arrival, and pointed to promised reductions in income tax rates rather than the net increase in overall tax collections.

"On the positive side, the tax rates identified in the Gang's plan - with a top rate of no more than 29 percent - and the president's endorsement of them are a positive development and an improvement over previous discussions," House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said. "That said, I am concerned with the Gang of Six's revenue target."

Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, head of a conservative House group known as the Republican Study Committee, was not moved.

"Let me be clear. This is the compromise. This is the best plan out there," Jordan said of the House-passed plan.

And it is not just conservatives who are opposed to the "Gang of Six" plan, and Democratic support may be critical for House passage, since many Republicans have vowed to oppose any increase in the debt limit.

"House Democrats hold the key to whatever plan can pass Congress. That's why the Senate 'Gang of Six' proposal is dead on arrival," said Rep. Raul Grijalva, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Grijalva noted that more than 70 House Democrats sent a letter to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi urging her to stand firm in opposition to any cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

But Pelosi on Wednesday said the Gang of Six plan "has some good principles in it," though she said she had not seen the details.

[payasyougo]

"the bipartisan "Gang of Six" senators, punts on many of the most difficult issues, leaving it to congressional committees to fill in the details LATER."
---------------

"lat?er" Pronunciation (Lay-ter)
adv. Comparative of late.

Subsequently; afterward. Often used by politicians to defer addressing critical issues forever.

See also:
false hope, disingenuous, bait and switch, business as usual and famous saying: "fool me once..."

[skeezix06]

What has been consistently and studiously ignored by both the politicians and the media is the fact that the people least able to afford cuts and still continue to live are being "counterbalanced" by cuts to corporations/people who are literally sitting on piles of money and who are not likely to be so heavily taxed that it will upset any of their plans and who if cuts to social security doesn't provide them relief under the table, are no doubt already planning ways to free themselves of any responsibility. The elderly, of course, will not be afforded any relief.

[167irishboy]

Pittsburgh Post Gazette 07/19/2011, Page B06


The rich get richer

And the argument not to tax them gets smaller



As Americans go into what will pre?sumably be the last act of the Wash?ington unreality show that constitutes raising the debt limit and possibly erasing at least part of the budget defi?cit, it is definitely worth looking at a study commissioned by The New York Times on the pay of the country's top executives.

As gauged by Equilar, an executive compensation data firm, in a nutshell, the median pay of top executives at 200 of America's big companies in 2010 rose 23 percent from 2009. That median pay level stood at $10.8 million, includ?ing cash bonuses and stock grants.

The highest pay went to Viacom's CEO, Philippe R. Dauman, who was paid an almost unimaginable $84.5 mil?lion. The highest paying companies were in the media, oil, commodity and technology fields. Another example was Comcast's CEO, Brian L. Roberts, who took home $28.2 million.

In the meantime, the average Amer?ican worker e arned $752 a week, or $39,104 a year as his median pay, a pa?thetic 0.4 percent of what the top ex?ecutives earned. His pay rose 0.5 per?cent from 2009 to 2010, as opposed to the 23 percent increase the executives received. U.S. unemployment stands at 9.2 percent, with some 14.1 million Americans jobless.

Where this information comes into play with respect to whatever compro?mise is finally arrived at in Washing?ton - if the United States is spared the humiliation of a sovereign debt default - is whether America's rich should pay more taxes.

In defense of the rich one ploy the Republicans have tried is to rename them "job creators," as opposed per?haps to "campaign contributors." The idea is that any increase in their taxes would discourage them from creating jobs, an idea proved to be preposter?ous by the fact that they have benefited from the Bush tax cuts for 10 years now while job creation in the U.S. eco nomy has gasped to a virtual halt, providing as example only 18,000 new jobs in June.

In the meantime, the Wall Street lobby spent an estimated $52 million in the first three months of this year seeking to stifle regulation by the Con?gress of the activities of banks and financial firms under the new Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Con?sumer Protection Act.

Giventherevenueproblemsthecoun?try faces,whateveragreementPresident Barack Obama and the Democrats ar?rive at with the Republicans had better include increases in the taxes that these lucky top executives pay. The spread between what they receive and their 23 percent annual increase, and what the American worker receives, with his 0.5 percent increase lagging well behind in?flation, gauged at 3.6 percent in June, is simply intolerable.

[luadda22]

irish, what's the problem, you envious? Maybe if you had gone to school you cold have one of those jobs too. Again why do you keep cutting and pasteing from the PPG, write your own views (if you can).

[icjunior97]

The sad part of all of this is, they are not looking at the whole picture. It is not just about spending, it is about how much money we are bringing in also. Which is down almost 25%, we have to stop giving tax breaks etc to everyone. It is really simple math. No matter how much you "cut spending", teh reality is we need to have money coming in period.

[temple1962]

I certainly hope all this fuss about "overspending", "debt reduction" and "budgetary restraints" doesn't interrupt Buckwheat and Moochell's next golf or vacation plans. I am hoping they can take a long final vacation in January 2013!

[GTR5]

You can be sure that any plan they come up with means that we the people get screwed again and we will have to pay for their mistakes and corruption.

[Progress4U]

And we the people elected them to congress...so isn't it our fault really??????

[Kieren1]

All parties need to come to the table and negotiate a solution. If hardliners refuse to negotiate and there's no deal, then there will be very significant consequences starting with a big hit in our reputation internationally and likely financial calamity. If this was a business negotiation done by businessmen it would get done. But it's being done by politicians who only care about their personal agendas, not the greater good of the country.

[afmcalax]

Call out the Tea party zealots. Vote on it in the Senate and then force a vote in the House. Have all sane Americans see what unthinking zealots the Tea Party politicians are so we will never repeat the mistake of voting them into office again. It is time to show all Democrats, Independents, and rationale Republicans that the Tea party is not worhty of support or respect.

The bottom line is that nobody should ever vote for a politician that is stupid enough to sign a pledge. They are sent to LEAD not FOLLOW. They sign pledges from people that do not hold elective office so they are basically allowing them to overrule their constituents. Hiding behind pledges show lack of intellect and the ability to learn, listen, and compromise as all leaders must.

[AngryMobVoter]

The fact is the American economic problems will never be solved. All of the people living off the governments dime (welfare, food stamps, government employees, etc.) will continue to vote for the SPEND PRINT and TAX DEMOCRATS. The SPEND PRINT and TAX DEMOCRATS will continue to vote for the maintenance and extension of these programs so they can keep getting elected. It is a downward spiral with no viable solution unless all of us not living off the governments dime vote 100% to stop the spending.

What needs to be done is to LOWER the debt ceiling.

Obama engaged in a reckless stimulus spending plan which only did more harm than good. That money was used to offset financial mismanagement at the state level. The projects that were funded by that money only gave a temporary increase in business to certain businesses but BUSINESS DID NOT CREATE PERMANENT JOBS TO MEET THAT DEMAND. Why? Because the stimulus was a temporary increase in spending and did not represent a long term increase in business. Businesses met that one time increase without hiring many people. The reckless stimulus spending did not create an investment opportunity for business. The only way we will see real, long term growth in jobs is if we eliminate the oppressive regulation of business (not wall street), change the tax structure so it is comparable to other countries, allow businesses the flexibility to make labor more efficient and STOP THE SPENDING.

Printing money did not work because interest rates were already as low as the could go. More dollars chasing the same amount of good and service means price increases not more jobs.

Our bloated and inefficient government is what is thwarting job and economic growth and the reckless stimulus spending and the reckless printing of money have not and will not do anything to fix it.

We must continue to VOTE THEM OUT!!!

[sjc_1]

The recovery package saved the jobs of teachers, fire, police and created jobs building schools, roads and bridges. Where are the jobs from $300 billion of that money Republicans insisted go to business tax breaks?

[stacibee]

$237 billion of that stimulus was tax cuts. Let's be fair. The depth and severity of this recession was not predictable.

[sjc_1]

Numbnuts, you are the one that is high.