The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Streetcar Line

How to ‘Gang’ Up Against Obama

By on 7.21.11 @ 6:09AM

Conservatives have an opening for victory.

Conservatives in Congress have never, ever been good at knowing when and how to declare victory and move on. In the debt limit/budget battle, they have missed several chances to bank at least a slight public relations win while also notching improvements in public policy. Now Barack Obama has given them another chance to do so, but again they unwisely seem to be making the perfect the enemy of the good.

The chance lies in Obama’s embrace of the “Gang of Six” plan. The answer is not to adopt the plan, with all its strengths and flaws, but to quickly counter with a scaled-down version of it that could be passed before August 2.

In embracing the Gang’s deal, Obama has made a major concession. For years he has wanted to repeal the Bush tax-rate cuts, thus raising marginal rates to a high of at least 39.6 percent. Yet by endorsing the Gang’s plan, Obama has said he can accept a top rate actually lower than today’s 35 percent — indeed, a top rate somewhere between 23 and 29 percent. This is an opportunity conservatives would be incredibly foolish not to grab. It also would be a tremendously helpful step to accept the Gang’s immediate, permanent repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax. Sure, Congress regularly “fixes” the AMT every year anyway, but as long as the AMT remains on the books, the “baseline” for future budgets is higher than it otherwise would be, causing all sorts of mischief. It would be good policy and good politics to grab this chance for permanent repeal while it’s available.

The Gang also proposes dropping the top rate for corporate income taxes to somewhere between 23 percent and 29 percent, matching the new top individual rate. While this doesn’t go nearly as far as I would like, it still would be a good start in the direction of making American businesses more competitive in the world marketplace.

To pay for all of this, Obama has also given approval for $500 billion in immediate deficit savings, along with a shift to a “chained CPI” (a more accurate measure of inflation), government-wide. These items should be accepted, and could quickly be enacted because they aren’t complicated. (Other details in the Gang’s plan, such as the budget “caps” through 2015, should be accepted in principle immediately as well, but they would take longer to actually enact legislatively.)

Obama and the Gang also want unspecified closures of “loopholes” and elimination of “tax expenditures,” presumably including Obama’s prized elimination of breaks for corporate jets. Fine. Accept some of them. Indeed, accept as many of them as would make reasonable sense from a policy standpoint (for example, ending ethanol subsidies) if Congress were starting from scratch.

Conservatives understand that not all tax cuts or tax hikes — indeed, not all taxes of whatever sort — have the same effects on the economy. Despite sounding Orwellian, the truth is that some taxes are, well, “more equal than others.” A one-time tax “rebate,” for instance, will not have anywhere near as beneficial an effect as a marginal rate cut of the same static value. On the flip side, closing a special-interest tax break may just shift productive behavior somewhere else rather than actually deter productive activity — because it doesn’t change broad-based incentives for productive behavior.

The upshot of all this is that some of Obama’s proposed tax hikes won’t hurt the economy as much as the tax-rate reductions will help it. Conservatives therefore shouldn’t get hung up on whether all the tax changes are “revenue neutral.” The key thing is to oppose any of Obama’s proposed tax hikes that would truly depress the economy. In other words, Republicans ought to adjudge the proposed hikes purely on the basis of their economic impact, not on their budgetary effects, as “scored” by static accounting. A scaled-down package of immediate spending cuts and individual and corporate tax rate reductions is worth a little bit of “give” on tax subsidies.

What conservatives should not accept are any Gang of Six plans to phase out charitable deductions or the like for high-income taxpayers. Those are the sorts of tax hikes that do the same thing, in effect, as raising marginal rates, and thus deter productive economic behavior.

If some of the Obama tax hikes are rejected, of course, the numbers won’t work for Democrats unless some of the Gang’s proposed tax cuts also are jettisoned. Again, fine. Nothing says that the 23-29 percent top rate for both individual and corporate taxes is sacrosanct. Thirty percent, or 31, would still provide a dynamic boost for the economy — and would have the added benefit, as noted before, of completely eliminating the chances for a reversion to much higher rates that are otherwise due to occur when the Bush tax cuts expire at year’s end.

In short, Republicans ought to accept not the Gang’s plan, which would be like walking a gangplank into tax-infested waters, but instead should counter-propose a scaled-down version of the Gang’s plan and dare Obama to contradict his own public statements by rejecting it. After all, Obama would be getting rid of the corporate jet write-off, and a number of other of his most PR-friendly complaints, and he would be asked to accept nothing that he hasn’t already publicly endorsed. He, not Republicans, would be in a political box of his own making.

Republicans, meanwhile, would appear in public to be the constructive problem-solvers, while pocketing all sorts of policy changes (lower rates, some immediate spending reductions and some long-term savings) that they long have advocated. Furthermore, they could note — if the deal were enacted — that the only reason Obama and the Democrats came to the table at all, in contradistinction to pushing Obama’s original spendthrift budget, was because Republicans stood up for taxpayers and responsible budgeting.

In sum, Republicans could declare victory and the moral high ground all at the same time. All they would need to give up in return is a slavish insistence on green-eyeshade, dollar-for-dollar equivalence between all facets of the plan. What matters isn’t really that the hike in the debt ceiling be no bigger than the overall budgetary savings, but that the Republicans for the first time ever be able to show some demonstrable savings from a debt ceiling fight, along with supply-side tax relief that bolsters the economy. To do all that while at the same time being the “adults” who avoided federal defaults would serve both their politics and the public interest.

Conservatives will never be able to enact all the policies we know are good until Barack Obama is gone from the presidency. But anything that moves the policy ball in the right direction without giving Obama a political advantage is devoutly to be desired. A scaled-down Gang-plan achieves this — without risking the all-or-nothing brinksmanship that, by definition, could end up with conservatives holding no ground at all.

Victory, for the sake of the American public and the American future, stares conservatives in the face, but it can only be achieved in stages. This is the first major stage. They should seize the ground that’s available.

About the Author

Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (83) |

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.21.11 @ 6:34AM

Since the Gang of Six plan details have not been released there is no ground to seize.

Like all the sleazy plans emanating out of the U.S. Congress there's a big catch to this plan. The plan gives the Senate Finance Committee six months to complete a tax reform package. There's also talk of a mysterious territorial system.

I have to disagree with you on this issue. There is nothing here for the Republicans because in fact there is nothing here yet since the details are very sketchy.

Some parts of the plan sound disastrous. For instance, elimination of the home mortgage deduction as well as the deduction for interest and state and local property taxes. That would probably ensure a decade long depression in the housing industry.

Other sketchy details appear to point to more outsourcing of jobs as well as possible taxes on retirement accounts as well as employer health care contributions.

All in all, the plan sounds rather dangerous and could further weaken the economy. There would be lower marginal rates but don't kid yourselves, the government would be the overall net winner for decades to come.

On another note, very little is being released about the spending cuts. They are probably soft cuts which are not cuts at all.

So here we are again. The nation is in trouble and the Ruling Class has but one thought. More taxes, phony spending cuts, and their promoters in the media will soon be telling you that it's the right thing to do.

Accept it or you'll be labeled. Perhaps you'll be called childish.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.21.11 @ 8:56AM

Here's a perfect example of left wing vacuousness. It's Contessa Brewer, who should actually be a blond, grilling Congressman Mo Brooks from Alabama. At one point he counters her that the nation was not about to fall into a depression. At that point she snarls, "Are you an economist?" Watch the video, it's priceless. A dingbat gets put in her place and with style.

http://www.wbal.com/absolutenm.....&zoneid=14

masly | 7.21.11 @ 11:48PM

This article was a little too tough for me to fully understand but I think the premise was: what may be a political advantage for the republicans.
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!

The Clintidote| 7.22.11 @ 12:24AM

Show me yah boobies, honey. Hillary'll never know. - Greasy Willy

Have you considered| 7.21.11 @ 9:41AM

Bill, I don't believe Quin was suggesting that the Gang Plan be adopted, with his suggestions Added to it. I read it as the Gang Plan be Supplanted by a House bill with Only the elements he has enumerated, which were elements that were proffered in the Gang Plan.

Quin, I like your suggestions as a start, and agree that nothing really worth while can be actually accomplished until Obama and most of the Democrat senators are out of office.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.21.11 @ 10:15AM

There are no cuts in the Gang of Six plan. It's a fraud. The cuts are all wrapped around "less" increases in the future.

That's the first time I've ever heard fraud labeled a good starting point.

Have you considered| 7.21.11 @ 10:46AM

Bill, I applaud (and join) your staunch opposition to a point. I agree that spending cuts scheduled to happen in the out years is exactly why we are where we are today.

However, we have clearly bumped into the reality of the 2010 elections, which thanks to Nevada, Delaware, Colorado, etc. have left us with a Democrat controlled senate.

Let's see what happens in the senate as they consider the House passed Cut, Cap and Balance. We will then be better able to discern what we can get in reality.

Have you considered| 7.21.11 @ 10:56AM

Honestly, if I had my druthers, the House would pass Rand Paul's budget, which proposed to eliminate whole unconstitutional departments which would equate to an Immediate Actual spending reduction, not just a reduction in future increases.

But we both know this will never get a hearing, let alone reach the floor of either the House or the Senate, even if both were entirely controlled by Republicans.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.21.11 @ 11:01AM

There are all types of sell outs in the works. McConnell's plan is only of many. Massive tax increases are about to be foisted on the middle class through various and sneaky means.

From Reason Magazine:
http://reason.com/archives/201.....-surrender
Only in Washington, D.C., would Mitch McConnell's Rube Goldbergian plan to capitulate on the national debt limit without admitting it be taken seriously. The Senate minority leader's "Plan B" is Exhibit A in the case against Congress, which dodges responsibility with the alacrity of a roach dodging a shoe. Like the congressional response to Barack Obama's unauthorized intervention in Libya's civil war, which has elicited disapproving noises but no decisive action one way or the other, McConnell's solution debases the legislative branch by letting the president do what he wants without officially endorsing it.

The problem, from McConnell's perspective, is that so many of his fellow Republicans insisted they would not vote to raise the debt limit, currently $14.3 trillion (nearly the size of the entire economy), without corresponding spending cuts. With Obama demanding tax hikes, which Republicans have sworn to oppose, they realized they were losing a game of chicken in which onrushing headlights were replaced by a fast-approaching deadline of August 2, when federal borrowing is expected to hit the limit.

Dave | 7.21.11 @ 1:50PM

Hey, Bill:

I enjoy your posts and usually see them noted with plenty of well documented information and stats, although sometimes spilling over into critical minutia. But as often heard on Seinfeld: "Not that there's anything WRONG with that ." It can be very necessary stuff. It just seems to me that long range problems usually follow after millions of well meaning, hard working adults pull in their driveways after another long day at the office or mini-mart, only to kick back on the sofa with a few colds ones and soak-up the daily drivel that passes for actual, factual news on ... the Nightly Foobab Report

Still, I appreciate your well noted takes. For the rest of us, though, who may not always have the time or sufficient end-of-day energy necessary to follow the daily raisin trail, I'd like to add my basic two-cents as to how this country fell into the budget swamp we currently find ourselves soaking in. When you cut through the feldergarb, it's not really that tough to analyze.

The Joe Six Pack view ...

If we ran our individual home budgets in the same wreckless manner our electeds have done over these mounting decades, we'd finally be forced to sit down at the kitchen table, break out the handy Radio Shack calculator and begin running the household "income/outlay" numbers. In my end of Mayfield, that might mean cutting back on, or eliminating, the family cable or satellite dish and going with free, over the air TV for a while. Might also want to require the family teen(s) to contribute a bit to the cost of their monthly cell phone service, and perhaps, in an effort to show some family balance, have dear ol' mom and dad start cutting back or eliminating altogether those frothy $6.00 buck a day frappuccinos at local Bocha Mocha Bean Hut.

And that'd be just a start. Unfortunately, too many families may already be ingrained with the notion that the cable/satellite dish connection, their cell phones and those frothy frappuccinos at the local Bocha Mocha Bean Hut are now ... an entitlement and will be cut-out amid much noise, heightened howling and whimpers of "but how am I gonna text my BFF Brandy? G-d, you're sooo mean. I HATE YOU!- SLAM!!

(uhh) You may want to budget for some dinged door repairs. Home Depot might be able to help with that.

So, what we're looking at is budgets and necessities verses what's considered ...entitlements. In political circles, it's all about the same stuff, while the actual cutting and adjustments will often happen at the houses on Mayberry Street and parts of Pleasant Valley, USA. Meanwhile, the greater whining goes on around 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and in those big buildings just up the block.

In the end, all budgets need to be balanced or the family goes bust. Nationally, there's only so much in actual cash (if any) stashed President Barry's checking account. And here along the earlier mentioned Mayberry Street we still haven't figured out how to print money without ending up doing a 15 to 20 stretch at the Graybar Hotel.

Having said all that, the D.C. Gang of CYA'sters may yet find an honest way to plug or put a workable patch over this deep cesspool we're sinking in. It could happen, but will will probably depend on how many adults are working that Radio Shack calculator. And don't be fooled. Wearing long pants doesn't necessarily qualify as being the adult in the room. Last time I checked, Bill Clinton was partial to boxers.

Guess we'll just have to see.

SpiralArchitect| 7.21.11 @ 2:33PM

Help me. How many times has the absolute last date before default been reconfigured?

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:29AM

The only gang plan he will listen to is a blanket party in the parking lot. Not kidding but then again most of congress deserves the same treatmemt.

Dai Alanye | 7.21.11 @ 3:51PM

OK, I agree fully to Quin's plan, since half a loaf is obviously better than none. Next year we can start on another spending cut, the ground having been prepared by this one.

Removal of the mortgage interest deduction is a no-starter, of course, unless our goal is to increase the ruin of the housing market. But there's no reason to include that in any Republican plan.

One proviso: Wouldn't want to do anything about it now, but I've always opposed the charitable-giving deduction. First, allowing deduction clearly dilutes the charitable aspect of any donation. Second, too many donations go to left-wing propaganda organizations posing as educational charities.

Alan Brooks| 7.21.11 @ 9:55PM

Let's say the GOP will do all it says it wants to do next year. By 2016 (or possibly next year) they will elect a BushDoleMcCain to unravel whatever 'progress' is made next year.

Texas Jayde| 7.22.11 @ 10:03AM

this is a distinct possibility as long as northeastern states such as new hampshire starts off the primary season. by the time the Texas primary rolls around, a lot of candidates have dropped out and the pool is much smaller and generally all the choices we get are the moderates.

Brian Mc| 7.21.11 @ 7:12AM

When we, as a whole, determined that 'income' was a perfectly sensible place to dip the federal net goes beyond absurdity. Ever since it was passed, the talk has always been the rates when zero is the only rate this Republic can afford in order to survive.

If we don't immediately begin repeal of the income tax amendment to the Constitution I foster no hope for the future but see only a struggle that will eclipse the Civil War.

Dai Alanye | 7.21.11 @ 3:54PM

This is true. It'd be far better to tax wealth, so that people like Warren Buffet would have to pay an appropriate amount. An income tax simply penalizes success, while a wealth tax would go after what amounts to a form of hoarding.

Mike 3/505| 7.21.11 @ 8:09PM

Horsehocky! You have it exactly backwards.

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 10:43PM

Dai! Say it ain't so. Tax the wealthy? Why? And I'm not wealthy either but I do not think it is right to tax those who became wealthy because they are wealthy.
It is their money~ hard earned or not. If it belongs to them, it belongs to them.

I so despise Socialism.

West Houston Geo| 7.21.11 @ 7:36AM

To accept this plan would give the regime the right to "close unspecified loopholes". So, wherever bho wants a new tax, he declares that a "loophole" now exisist and "closes" it. Since the loophole is a fiction, it can be as big as the desired new tax.
No, thanks.

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 7:38AM

" Dr. Ron Paul, U.S. representative from Texas (statement from campaign chairman Jesse Benton): “Congressman Paul does not support the Gang of Six negotiations. He has never voted for, and as president would veto, any unbalanced budget, debt limit increase or attempt to raise taxes.”

David| 7.21.11 @ 9:19AM

In addition to kicking everyone on disability off disability because "they really what a chance to work again".

Yeah. I'm voting for that criminal.

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 11:26AM

Dr. Ron Paul,
" In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector. "

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 12:03PM

So you think our medicine should go back to 1965? Not sure hospitals and doctors could pony up for MRI's, Cat scans, or even Chemo-therapy drugs nowdays.

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 12:28PM

Dr.Ron Paul,
"We’ve had managed care in this country since the early 1970s, and it hasn’t worked well. It’s very, very expensive, and it’s the fault that we changed our ERISA law and our tax laws that created this corporatism that runs medicine. Wall Street rakes off the profits. The patients are unhappy. The doctors are unhappy. And it’s a monopoly now. Who lobbies us in Washington? The drug companies and the HMOs. They come. And now what is the cry for? Socialized medicine. That’s not the answer. We need to get the government out of the way. Inflation hits the middle class and the poor the most. Those are the people who are losing it. We don’t have enough competition. There’s a doctor monopoly out there. We need alternative health care freely available to the people. They ought to be able to make their own choices and not controlled by the FDA preventing them to use some of the medications. "

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 12:34PM

" There’s a doctor monopoly out there. We need alternative health care freely available to the people."

Now he sounds like Obama. A doctor monopoly? They do not set the prices. Insurance companies do. Alternative health care freely available? Sounds like socialized medicine to me, who picks up the tab? Where we don't have enough competetion is in healthcare insurance. Remove the borders on it and let the free market and competetion drive down the cost. Drive it down further with monetary limits to malpractice lawsuites. Worked for Texas.

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 1:28PM

He's talkin' about Managed Care.

Dr.Ron Paul,
"Last week the congressional Joint Economic committee on which I serve held a hearing featuring two courageous medical doctors. I had the pleasure of meeting with one of the witnesses, Dr. Robert Berry, who opened a low-cost health clinic in rural Tennessee. His clinic does not accept insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, which allows Dr. Berry to treat patients without interference from third-party government bureaucrats or HMO administrators. In other words, Dr. Berry practices medicine as most doctors did 40 years ago, when patients paid cash for ordinary services and had inexpensive catastrophic insurance for serious injuries or illnesses. As a result, Dr. Berry and his patients decide for themselves what treatment is appropriate.

Freed from HMO and government bureaucracy, Dr. Berry can focus on medicine rather than billing. Operating on a cash basis lowers his overhead considerably, allowing him to charge much lower prices than other doctors. He often charges just $35 for routine maladies, which is not much more than one's insurance co-pay in other offices. His affordable prices enable low-income patients to see him before minor problems become serious, and unlike most doctors, Dr. Berry sees patients the same day on a walk-in basis. Yet beyond his low prices and quick appointments, Dr. Berry provides patients with excellent medical care.

While many liberals talk endlessly about medical care for the poor, Dr. Berry actually helps uninsured people every day. His patients are largely low-income working people, who cannot afford health insurance but don't necessarily qualify for state assistance. Some of his uninsured patients have been forced to visit hospital emergency rooms for non-emergency treatment because no doctor would see them. Others disliked the long waits and inferior treatment they endured at government clinics. For many of his patients, Dr. Berry's clinic has been a godsend. "

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 1:48PM

Do Your Homework Drunken Swabbie & Stop Trying To Get Others To Do Your Homework For You.

That's Liberal Lazy Ass Crap.

Dr.Ron Paul,
"Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.

Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not.
We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.

True competition in the delivery of medical care is what is needed, not more government meddling. "

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 2:13PM

Ok, that works for small doctor visit, how do you propose that works for hospitals.

And unlike you I can respond without the name calling and actually post things in my own words instead of constantly using the copy/paste function. Do you read anything other than Rand Paul? Is there any damn thing he says that you disagree with?

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 5:32PM

Do Your Own Homework. Then You Won't Have To Ask So Many Stupid Questions & You May Actually Learn Something.

Aaaand We're Talkin' About Our Tea Party Co-Favorite & Our Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul, & Not Our Tea Party Senator From The Commonwealth Of Kentucky Dr.Rand Paul.
Apparently, You Don't Read Anything By Dr.Ron Paul.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

irish19| 7.21.11 @ 10:34PM

Okay, we know what Paul thinks. What do YOU think?

David| 7.21.11 @ 2:48PM

Patients deserve the right to just compensation for malpractice. They don't deserve to have their results whittled down to some arbitrary number the well-to-do decided was "fair" because they were tired of paying out of their pockets for their mistakes, nor to have it capped by tricking the voters with cleverly crafted ads and deceitful websites (actually, they were outright lies, but moving on...).

Ron Paul and his flock are not good for Americans. His narrow view of things is too narrow. I'd rather vote for Obama than any 'Paul'.

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 3:22PM

And you are ignoring a major cause for healthcare being expensive. Malpractice insurance is through the roof due to the abuse of lawyers. Most insurance companies settle out of court, and pass the loss on with higher insurance rates rather than go to court, pay to fight the case and possible even win.

No one said they did not have a right to malpractice. Anyone wronged should be compensated but thanks to idiot juries the rates have been astronomical. Multi-million dollar settlements to single indivuduals may make their life easier but once you get past the bills the extra money in the bank will not take their physical self back to before the malpractice. A line must be equitable but drawn or risk can not be assessed.

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 6:00PM

Well Devey Boy, You & Obama May Not Be Good For Americans,But You Sure As Hell Are Good For Nothin'.

"Rasmussen Polling:
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters nationwide favor limiting the amount of money a jury can award a plaintiff in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 29% disagree and 14% are not sure.

Forty-seven percent (47%) believe that restricting jury awards for medical malpractice lawsuits will significantly reduce the cost of health care in the United States. Twenty-eight percent (28%) disagree, and 25% are not sure."

The Tea Party Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

David| 7.21.11 @ 2:49PM

Your comment has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 6:05PM

That's What Happens When Someone's Irrelevant, Like You, Davey Boy.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

martin j smith| 7.21.11 @ 7:44AM

There should be no gangs and no gang of sixes. Any proposal should be made in the open and scrutinized completely--that is why I oppose this sort of deal making. A short term deal --fine --no problem but no tax increases and modest spending cuts. But, with Obama in the WH there will be no agreement on a grand bargain for the whole idea is a oxymoron. That is there is no way that there will be a workable deal with Obama--reason--
Its all about him --period.

USSAlabama| 7.21.11 @ 9:00AM

Gang! That just makes me sick.

Has anyone remembered the 'Gang of Four' in the Cultural Revolution of Mao's China?

No thanks.

Dan Hirsch| 7.21.11 @ 8:18AM

Quin, Quin, Quin,

Haven't you been paying attention? The DC elites, Democrats and non-TeaParty Republicans LIE.

They have promised all kinds of things in the past and have never, ever delivered on them. They didn't beef up enforcement of the borders in 1988, they didn't give two dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases to Reagan or Bush 1. They only numbers that matter are this year's. Out years are the same story as 'Yea, baby I'll respect you in the morning.'

Grow up! Rush played audio of Johnson era (Lyndon) pols screaming that the social security checks and soldiers' pay check would not go out if we didn't raise the debt limit to $380 BILLION. Oh, the good old days!

This is a big scam and these Congress people cannot be given a single second of hope that they won't face de-election if they do not dramatically cut spending, now, this year, today!!!

It's pretty simple and obvious. Wake up? Or are you having a migraine, today?

Don't tread on me...

JayDick| 7.21.11 @ 9:10AM

Of course the gang of six overall plan is a scam; big on promises, short on specific actions. That's why Quin's plan is so good. No promises, just concrete changes with fairly predictable effects. Not only is it good policy, even though limited, it is good politics. Sounds like a potential win for Republicans to me.

TrueBlue| 7.21.11 @ 3:08PM

And his ideas use all the "plans" they've made against them, since they already agreed to all of it. His idea takes their vagueries and makes them specific.

I don't agree with everything, but I do understand that we need to take as much as we can get to fix the budget. We can get rid of the stuff we don't like once Obama is out of the way.

Indy| 7.21.11 @ 8:18AM

The gang of 6 plan starts off with the wrong baseline, it's my understanding it includes all of the spending increases since Obama took office so that means even stimulus spending is included in the baseline, am I wrong? I'm trying to find details of the plan but they don't seem to exist yet...perhaps they will appear at midnight on August 1st.

Here's one site I've read with some detailed analysis with more to come
http://keithhennessey.com/2011.....-six-plan/

darcy| 7.21.11 @ 2:20PM

Very helpful link, Indy; thank you for posting it.

youfamissim | 7.21.11 @ 8:23AM

Quinn the problem to be avoided is handing Obama anything that improve his re-election chances. If Republican ideas are codified, and the economy improves - Obama wins. I'd prefer to wait and leave the mess as it is until voters remove him from office.

JayDick| 7.21.11 @ 9:13AM

A valid thought, but it clearly puts politics above the Nation's best interest. I think getting Obama and the Democrats out of power is in the National interest too, but refusing to enact a policy that would clearly benefit the Country because it would help Obama is going too far for me.

Warrior | 7.21.11 @ 3:23PM

You nailed it. Unfortunately, our elected officials are playing this game every minute of every day. Democrats are only interested in enacting a policy or law that will lead to re-election and more power. Unfortunately and why we all lose is that the Republicans are working towards a similar end. McConnell and Boehner sat idly by while a Republican led government ran up debts and Democrats cried foul as loud and frequently as possible. So here we are today, same movie with roles reversed.

The only possible way to save the Republic is let it die and start again.

Chef Schnauzer| 7.21.11 @ 8:28AM

It's actually kind of sad that you believe these lies. The cuts never come. The elimination of earmarks never happens. I'm actually slightly embarassed for you and your refusal to accept the reality that our governemnt is a criminal enterprise. Criminally incompetent, Criminally inflicted on one group and not others. Its a self-sanctioned mafia with JDs.

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 10:57AM

Agreed. If possible Regan could have explained how Tip Oneill did the same to him.

POST American| 7.21.11 @ 8:36AM

Of course the first thing conservatives must
do is seperate 'conservative' --from 'CON-servers'
EYE-CONS and CON-jobs.

Biz nihilism is, by no stretch, 'conservative'.

Hence the Globalist, franchise slum 'values' of
Rick Perry (NAFTA sellout/Bilderberg front)
Mitt Romney ('Banker Bailout'/ open borders/
Globalist and almost certainly a EUGENICS 'friendly' Freemason)
have absolutely NO place in this coming 11th hour POST American election.

martin j smith| 7.21.11 @ 8:47AM

Quinn--I have a question--Are you for cloak room behind the backs of voters governing ( or ruling really )or a Representative republic where voters count ? Which is it ?

David| 7.21.11 @ 9:23AM

One thing that strikes me in this article is a notion that Obama would accept tax cuts. I can only imagine how the Libs would spin that later into something bad for America and blame it on the Republicans.

patroness| 7.21.11 @ 9:49AM

Let's gang with up prayer: God Bless America!

Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen. God Bless America!

Dave Williams| 7.21.11 @ 1:05PM

....and this is why the left 1) thinks we're ignorant boobs, and 2) wraps circles and figure-eights around us particularly. Prayer might work IF THERE WERE ANYBODY LISTENING, but of course there ISN'T...organizing, fund-raising, persuading, and voting will do a MUCH better job of reversing our current national nose-dive.

Dave Williams| 7.21.11 @ 1:05PM

...whoops, sorry, "particularly" should be "politically"....

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 3:24PM

Let's say your right and no one is listening (I do not share that view). Tell me just how it is detrimental? Anything giving one solace in time of need and not injuring others is a good thing.

Try some tolerance.

Maddox| 7.21.11 @ 10:16AM

If you hear Republicans have a "gang" you can bet the American people are about the be "banged." The RHINOS have helped liberals destroy most of our freedom already and I expect them to continue. Democrats are evil but those who claim to be different are worse. They hide behind lies and deceive us while doing the same thing liberals openly do to us. A proper solution to this situation would need to be kept secret. Bend over America, here it comes again!

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.21.11 @ 11:28AM

Perfect!

RAMIII| 7.21.11 @ 2:00PM

I say a GANG PLANK for the "Gang(sters) of 6". I don't trust any of them -- Unfortunately decades of being lied to makes one rather cynical!! :[

martin j smith| 7.21.11 @ 10:55AM

Speaking of gangs--In my view FOX NEWS has joined the "gang" of prop up Obama Media. If you look at the FOX NEWS HEADLINE PAGE you find that they are claiming a) Repubs have no pla and b) the will need to latch onto the gang of six plan.
I fear that FOX has been thuged into joining the dark side and have less use for them than in the recent past. Instead of Fair and Balanced the are Fear and Monger. I regret to have these feelings but the more I see of them the more I feel this to be so. Thus they are part of the MSM --too bad.

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 11:04AM

You might want to read the article before you jump to any conclusions.

Perusha| 7.21.11 @ 11:00AM

We are always in the money P.I.T.

Quinn’s article is a great addition to the ongoing attempt to understand the white-hot negotiations going on in that cesspool, Washington D.C.

It reminded me of the acronym, P.I.T., which clarifies the essence of any negotiating---

P. = POWER
I. = INFORMATION
T. = TIME

As for POWER, given that we all ALWAYS focus on the future---what the hell is ubiquitous POLLING about, if not that?---even as the black and white numbers NOW are that the GOP only has the House, and the jackasses the Senate and the Presidency, THE overriding concern for all the elected individuals in DC is THEIR own hope to again get elected.

So, it seems to me that, taking into account the 2010 elections, and the wonderful changes brought by the standout governors like Christie, to date, the libs are playing defense, trying as hard as they can to use their current power to hold on to their gains---prevent defense, as the clock runs down.

Take TIME---every day brings us all closer to November 2012, so who’s got the edge in this vital dimension?

The libs are playing conservatively, trying to run out the clock, happy when they go to sleep each day IF they’ve been able to block any GOP changes. But, tick tock, drip, drip, maybe here it’s appropriate to apply the “familiarity breeds contempt” cliché---the longer time passes, the more TIME for the light of truth to shine into the dark holes, within which the liberal “creeps” try to hide.

TIME, inexorably, exposes, and once a Weiner has been undressed, most people can’t go back to the past when such a fake was able to hide his true nature---just so with libs, more or less.

What about INFORMATION?

The uber-alles fight has long been recognized as between the holdouts, known as the MSM, and their New Age opponents---the latter are only GROWING both in number, AND in their reach.

I remember well, back when Limbaugh was the ONE and ONLY, as he freely welcomed onto his program people who would later copy him---to wit, Mark Levin. And, NOW, we have a plethora of INFORMING sources not just countering the MSM idiots, but overwhelming them, indeed mocking them as the pompous fools they are!

Borrowing a vital idea from economics, also apply “on the margin” to this P.I.T. trip.

There will always be fools, since public schools continue to regularly---or is that irregularly, as in an “irregular bowel movement”?---dump out newbies, to replace “oldies” who’ve coil-shuffled-off, after a long enough lifetime to wake up.

However, perhaps the working of P.I.T. is, AT THE MARGIN, in the process of working its magic, so that before too long, epiphanies will be rampant, one voter by one voter.

I can “HOPEFULLY” picture America---pace that famous photo of North verses South Korea, taken at night, showing the darkness of the former and the lightness of the latter---with “lights” turning on, all across the fruited plains. Why, there MIGHT even be some available people on the deluded coastal areas who eventually get so turned off by the FRANK Mass. “un-miracle” to flip the switch, a la David Manet!

So many dichotomies clamor to be used!

What is a sadist?

Someone who is kind to a masochist.

Maybe I’m acting as a sadist, with this kind of drivel.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.21.11 @ 11:20AM

“The Gang also PROPOSES”
“SHOULD be accepted”
“Obama and the Gang also want UNSPECIFIED closures”
“SOME of Obama's proposed tax hikes WON’T hurt the economy”
These quotes from Quin’s piece illustrate many things. First this proposal is simply another unspecified “kick the can down the road” lie. Second it is the Republican’s "folding their tent" as usual, and third it is the absolute unmitigated failure of the beltway and the pundits that comment on this delusion and rhetorical deferment of responsibility.
The legislative system and the representatives in place are not capable of handling this crisis, only the freshman from 2010 and their influence is propelling us to sanity. This is most evident by the commentary originating within the “supposed” think tanks; both they and the congressional contingent are in full fledged denial.
We are going to have to take our medicine. Lying to us about the disaster of not raising the debt limit is lying twice. We can pay the interest, essential commitments can be paid; the “fear” is not within the enraged and fully aware electorate, it is instead, within the entrenched government infrastructure. Once it becomes evident that when they are put out of pay (not work, they produce nothing) they will be “found out.” No one will notice that they are absent; the only thing changing will be the tax coffers filling up again.
Everything you are witnessing, the writhing wonks, the pontificating pundits, the scaremongering from the jug eared clown is presumptive on the fact that things are going to have to change. The sooner things change, the lesser the impact will be.
Now is the time to draw the line. There is a monster in the White House, there are cowards in the Legislative Houses, and their allies in the media have their heads in the sand.

Oldefarte| 7.21.11 @ 11:23AM

Quin, I agree with your proposals mostly but your statement ['....The upshot of all this is that some of Obama's proposed tax hikes won't hurt the economy as much as the tax-rate reductions will help it. Conservatives therefore shouldn't get hung up on whether all the tax changes are "revenue neutral." The key thing is to oppose any of Obama's proposed tax hikes that would truly depress the economy. In other words, Republicans ought to adjudge the proposed hikes purely on the basis of their economic impact, not on their budgetary effects, as "scored" by static accounting. A scaled-down package of immediate spending cuts and individual and corporate tax rate reductions is worth a little bit of "give" on tax subsidies...'] is incorrect. ANY tax hike [or elimination of tax breaks] will hurt this fragile economy, and that precisely IS THE POINT. This moron president and his domestic terrorists Democrat-congressmen have completely gutted our economy with their policies, and ANY TAX INCREASE OF ANY DEMENTION could be the straw that broke the camel's back of the economy. This country [and the world] is on the brink of financial destruction, and SPENDING DECREASES BY GOVERNMENT are presently the only solution to this problem. In Keynesian terminology, governmental spending reductions will be reverse-stimulation to government and alternatively stimululation to private industry [which will improve the economy]. Additionally, any tax increases agreed to to placate Obama/Democrats will only dilute the achieved spending reductions and make same less effective. Sizable spending cuts will act as a tax reduction in your destire to stimulate the economy, as the financial strain placed upon banks/financials by providing governmental loans purchasing treasuries etc will be lessened/reduced and therefore make these bank funds available to provate business wishing to take out loans. The whole emphasis should be on spending reductions and NOT on taxes/revenue, and the only permanent solution is for the minority Republicans to avoid default/government shutdown, get as much spending reductions as possible from these domestic terrorists, and to increase their congressional and presidential numbers in November of next year [at which time your tax/revenue issues can be rightfully addressed, not now]!!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 7.21.11 @ 11:35AM

PS: Quin/all, please read George Neumayr's brilliant article in today's TAS, as same expresses my POINT exactly!!!!!!!!

martin j smith| 7.21.11 @ 11:36AM

Drunken Sailor: I read the article which is quite convoluted in my view--this side can do this and that side can do that--its enough to make one dizzy. But one the best lines is the idea that Obama can threaten REPUBLICANS by withholding social security checks. IF Obama continued on that line it would give Conservatives a tremendous advantage--it should be even now a good add, but if Obama repeats himself it would be a great add. Then again it depends on leadership. I still maintain from FOX its FEAR and Monger--sorry that is my take. It could be a way of increasing the viewers but there it is.

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 12:08PM

I understand your point but that is exactly what obams is doing, threatening the Republicans by threatening to withold social security checks. Why is he doing this? Because it has worked in the past and unfortunately will work with many of our uninformed masses now. That's just reality. Conservatives are getting better and getting their message out but the Republican party is not. Until they do or a successful, powerful 3rd party is formed that is just where we stand. Fox has to raise viewership as well but in my opinion they are still better than anything else in the US. The rest are just US versions of Pravada, and the BBC.

Clinton Lovell| 7.21.11 @ 11:54AM

All we need to know is what the marginal rate will be for the economy. I have a sneaking suspicion the effect of closing those loopholes is going to be an increase in the marginal rates paid by most taxpayers. In the end their rate is increased as a result of the elimination of certain tax deductions. Add to that the repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts and you have a monster.

Thanks, but no thanks. The best deal for America is not the Gang Of Six or the Hole in The Head Gang Approach. The best deal is no deal as it puts an end to the ruling-class/banking industry cartel's ability to spend money they don't have and that means our economy will recover immediately and an end to the unemployment nightmare. Try selling this treacle somewhere else.

martin j smith| 7.21.11 @ 12:36PM

There a couple of issues that should be raised by republicans --but I do not know if they have the stuff to do it. One as mentioned above is Obama'a thugury with Social Security. But in addition lets look at the cause of our current situation: Obama's spending, ( his picture should be superimposed by the amount of money he has spent ) and our down grade in credit unless we cut spending sufficiently. In other words--BLAME OBAMA.

Le tme add one more point about "ganging up" . FOX ( AGAIN!!!!!!!!! ) IN PUSHING THE GANG OF SIX PLAN --AND WHY ? SORRY FOLKS FOX IS FEAR AND MONGERING.

Fred Campbell| 7.21.11 @ 12:44PM

The other commentators have demolished Hillyer's "logic" very effectively.
What remains a mystery to me why "Plan B" is not simply: No Debt Increase!
The direct result would be the re-prioritization of expenditures for the rest of the fiscal year. Many programs, of marginal utility, would necessarily be "zeroed-out" with the subsequent unemployment a few thousand government lackeys, a small price to pay for fiscal sanity.
Oh yes, another result would be a quantum increase in the "credit rating" of the US as investors everywhere realize that we are serious about maintaining the integrity of the dollar.
Talk about win-win!!!

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.21.11 @ 1:00PM

Win-win, and your take makes it win-win-win.

simon templar| 7.21.11 @ 1:31PM

Until conservatives and republicans learn how to control and develop their media images and learn how to communicate their positions and ideas to the American public effectively and remain true to principle, they will not win anything and the incremental and continual destruction of the Republic will continue. It is no more complicated than that. Everything else is a distraction and a waste of effort, time and money.

1ConservativeUSA| 7.21.11 @ 1:56PM

I understand the political difficulty here, but our true problems transcend politics.

If conservatives "negotiate" with liberal Marxists, liberal Marxists will simply feel enabled for the next round of spending and debt ceiling negotiations.

If conservatives "negotiate" with liberal Marxists, then Obama will hold another press conference, this time going national, and claim that it was his great vision and leadership that broke the deadlock, which was caused by the conservatives. The press conference, by the way, will undoubtedly be another Obama campaign event, held in the White House and paid for by the taxpayer.

If conservatives "negotiate" with liberal Marxists, mostly by tinkering with the tax code, they will not have learned or solved the real problems of profligate government spending and overreach.

Each time I say liberal Marxists, you could insert RINO as well. Politicians, once a default is averted, will breathe a sigh of relief and return to business as usual.

So no, I do not accept your premise that we should "negotiate" with these liberal Marxists, and then hope for something better if we obtain control of the Senate and White House.

The House just passed a historic bill in Cut, Cap & balance. Conservatives should now sit tight and let the liberal Marxists squirm. Conservatives should not negotiate against themselves by aligning with any bill that promotes the false reforms of tax increases and wealth redistribution.

Now is the time to fight for this country's survival by solving the real problems, using our founding principles to guide us. If the electorate cannot identify the real problems and the responsible parties, then we no longer deserve to be a great nation.

Dale R.| 7.21.11 @ 2:06PM

Oldefarte, you wrote, "...ANY TAX INCREASE OF ANY DEMENTION...." I congratulate you on your nonce word, a combination of "dimension" and "dementia." Truly fitting, I must say. :)

Wayne | 7.21.11 @ 3:03PM

All I see are the Republicans negotiating with themselves and Obama cherry picking what they want.

martin j smith| 7.21.11 @ 3:43PM

Simon Templar: I agree that Republicans need to learn how to put out their message--and they are paying a severe price for this handicap. The "hope" is that voter anger might at some point sooner rather than later encourage the old guard to resign. We need new leaders and among other things they need to learn MEDIA ANALYSIS 101-
and Obama ANALYSIS 101 which means how to see lies and respond to them and how to take on MSM news propagandists and take the agenda from them instead of allowing MSM to determine the agenda. Stuff like that.

Dai Alanye | 7.21.11 @ 4:02PM

I'm amazed at the reading skills of many of the commenters on this thread. Quin is not proposing we accept the Gang of Six recommendations but that we significantly modify them to make the program acceptable.

In effect, "they" get to keep the name, while we get the substance. It's like a form of legislative judo, and a very smart move.

Jacques Bakke | 7.21.11 @ 5:31PM

All well and good and you are undoubtedly correct in many of your assumptions. I still do not believe we should be negotiating with Marxists who lie about everything.. They cannot be trusted, so rather than letting this incompetent have even an inch we should be going full steam ahead using the last election as our throttle: Change the Direct Tax system to a Consumption Tax---this will lower taxes for everyone (instant pay raise for working stiffs) and bring off shore manufacturing home---employing Americans rather than Chinese.
Get rid of the Federal Reserve and Fractional Banking policies and the creating of money from thin air. Go to the Gold standard and silver standard.
Drill for our own oil and stop buying silk pajamas for the Saudi Monarchy. Run Al Gore out of town fast!
Run a non-white-male Presidential election in 2912 possibly two women: one white one black such as Bachmann and Star Parker, albeit there are males of color who are highly and much more qualified than the incompetent in the WH now (Real Americans---not "faux bro."

Gary B| 7.21.11 @ 6:47PM

"Victory, for the sake of the American public and the American future, stares conservatives in the face..."

I firmly believe the actual role of DC Republicans is to provide credible cover for the liberals. How many times have you heard, "Well, we tried but we just didn't have the votes?" Then they all go to same cocktail party and congratulate themselves on fooling us one more time and laugh all the way to the bank. It's a broken record...

This gang of six BS is just that. How about "No New Taxes?" That's easy to understand, isn't it?

Dominic| 7.21.11 @ 9:50PM

This article was a little too tough for me to fully understand but I think the premise was: what may be a political advantage for the republicans.

If it gets Obama out of office in 2012, OK.
If it doesn't NO WAY.

I submit, as long as Obama has the corporate media in his pocket, he wins in 2012. Too many people on the nipple watching free TV.

Vibram Womens Five Fingers Bik | 7.21.11 @ 9:55PM

Vibram Mens Five Fingers Flow have grown in fame enough to provide an amazing fashion appeal as well as the functionality of the shoe. There are very specific health benefits and shoe categories within this line.

POST American| 7.21.11 @ 11:09PM

----Triviality and secondary front ops----

AS that 1.5 QUADRILLION in FAKE derivatives
debt has yet to be mentioned ---OR the massively
unfolding Globalist national subversion op,
a little BLAST from the PAST-----from the
'Federal' Reserve in days of yore---

"Her modern dwellings, gymnasiums,
swimming pools, her fine public highways, her perfect
factories --ALLL this was done with our money.
ALL this was given to Germany. The Federal Reserve Board
has pumped so many BILLIONS into Germany that they dare not name the total."
-REP. Louis McFadden
Penn.

POST American| 7.21.11 @ 11:13PM

NOTE -----That was 1935.

I think we all know where that led.

SO, just keep a goin' kiddies!

There's NO problem with psychopathic USURY
and EUGENICS being at large and running the show.
The 'Big Boys' are right!

RED China IS a 'miracle' ! --and now the 'model
for the world'. They'll take care of us!

---------------Just keep a goin'!

Nice| 7.22.11 @ 10:45PM

As a result, Dr. Berry and his patients decide for themselves what treatment is appropriate.
Wonderful, my friend. It is very great, my friend.
http://www.summer-products.com
http://www.ainibag.com

More Articles by Quin Hillyer

More Articles From Streetcar Line

Military Might, Out of the Wilderness

May 8, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Not Wanting to Write About Nothing Good

April 30, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Perez Abomination Grows

April 23, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Tea Partiers for Freedom

April 16, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Make Room for a New Master

April 9, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/21/how-to-gang-up-against-obama

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|50 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|43 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|27 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|61 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|9 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|16 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|19 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Obama Addresses Nuclear Reduction, Climate Change

Claire Healey | 5:07PM

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Obama's Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara | 6.19.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.