Growls

Dan Mitchell blogs at Big Government that “the Gang of Six is back from the dead.” In addition he points out their “plan,” such as it is since it seems to exist only in five pages of so-called talking points (with a link). An example of each of the major points follows:

• The Good: “Unlike President Obama, the Gang of Six is not consumed by class-warfare resentment. The plan envisions that the top personal income tax rate will fall to no higher than 29 percent.”

• The Bad: “The much-heralded spending caps do not apply to entitlement programs. This is like going to the doctor because you have cancer and getting treated for a sprained wrist.”

• The Ugly: “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.”

In summary, Mitchell points out that his “quick analysis leaves many questions unanswered,” which he spells out.

At National Review Online’s blog, The Corner, Robert Costa talks about Sen. Tom Coburn “rejointing” the bipartisan so-called Gang of Six.” Also at The Corner, the inimitable Mark Steyn describes some of the Gang of Six’s “bag of tricks” used to arrive at their $3.7 trillion in savings, including this:

“If you take the Gang’s figure of half-a-trillion dollars in immediate “aggressive deficit reduction” seriously, that represents about what the U.S. government borrows every four months. What’s “aggressive” about that? And what’s immediate about it? It’s all unspecified “discretionary spending caps” and “process reforms” that will collapse like soufflés ten minutes after the signing ceremony. Obviously it’s appealing to Democrats: It accepts their view that 25 percent of GDP should be the new baseline for national (“federal” no longer seems quite the word) government spending. But what’s in it for Republicans?”

Finally, at the NRO’s The Corner, James C. Capretta writes of “The Gang of Six Disaster: The Worst Plan So Far.” Briefly, he says:

“In short, the Gang of Six has essentially offered a plan in which Republicans would hand over control of the budget process to Democratic senators and hope for the best. Enough said.”

Capretta’s piece explains the three parts of the Gang's approach. It's not that long, and is worth reading.

UPDATE (7/21/11): At the National Taxpayers Union blog, Government Bytes, yesterday, Brandon Greife writes that the "Gang of Six Returns to Haunt Taxpayers." His conclusion:

"Overall, the plan promises to provide $1.5 trillion in tax relief relative to the CBO March baseline. But this is nothing more than a dishonest budgetary trick designed to hide the real impact on taxpayers. “The CBO baseline assumes the expiration of tax relief, resulting in a $3.5 trillion revenue increase. As a result, the plan appears to include a $2 trillion revenue increase relative to a current policy baseline,” says the House Budget Committee in their analysis of the proposal. “If the $800 billion in tax increases from the new health care law are included, the plan appears to increase revenues by $2.8 trillion, without addressing unsustainable health care spending that is driving our debt problems.”

$2.8 trillion in tax hikes?!? The Gang of Six may be baa-aack, but if that’s the best they can do, they should have stayed gone."