AP's Ohlemacher Describes 'Gang of Six' Document As a 'Plan' 12 Times
It really is a "plan," and don't you forget it.
Never mind, as the Washington Examiner's Conn Carroll inconveniently points out, that the document produced by the "Gang of Six" -- Republican Senators Coburn, Chambliss, and Crapo, along with Democratic Senators Conrad, Warner, and Durbin -- is all of five pages. If you take out the white space, it's about 3-1/2.
Early this evening, the Associated Press's Stephen Ohlemacher called the output of the Gang of Six a "plan" no fewer than 12 times -- and his report's headline was "Bipartisan tax plan trims mortgage deduction." Okay, Steve, even though you (and the Gang) are obviously wrong, we get it.
A "plan" -- at least one that is supposed to lead to legislation -- is supposed to be "a detailed scheme, method, etc., for attaining an objective." The roughly 1,050 words in the AP writer's report is not that much shorter than the Gang of Six's almost 1,600-word "plan." Ohlemacher himself cites the document's lack of specifics or details in some manner about a half-dozen times. Sorry, Steve: The Gang of Six document is not a "plan" in any meaningful sense of the word, and their calling it a "plan" doesn't change that reality.
But give Ohlemacher and AP credit in one area: While the Gang of Six claims that "If CBO scored this plan, it would find net tax relief of approximately $1.5 trillion," the wire service's coverage reveals that taxes would instead increase by almost as much or possibly more.
Here are several paragraphs from Ohlemacher's effort (bolds are mine). Note the class warfare hit in the final bolded item:
A new bipartisan plan to reduce government borrowing would target some of the most cherished tax breaks enjoyed by millions of families - those promoting health insurance, home ownership, charitable giving and retirement savings - in exchange for lowering overall tax rates for everyone.
Many taxpayers would face higher taxes - a total of at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade, and perhaps more.
... For its part, the Gang of Six plan punts on many of the most difficult issues, leaving it to congressional committees to fill in the details later. But supporters say it provides a framework to simplify the tax code, making it easier for businesses and individuals to comply while eliminating incentives to game the system.
... The Republican staff of the House Budget Committee issued a critique saying the revenue increase could exceed $2 trillion over the next decade, when compared with current tax policy.
"A tax increase is the wrong policy to pursue with so many Americans out of work," said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.
The plan would simplify the tax code by reducing the number of tax brackets from six to three, lowering the top rate from 35 percent to somewhere between 23 percent and 29 percent. That could provide a windfall for wealthy taxpayers because the 35 percent tax bracket currently applies to taxable income above $379,150.
Geez, Steve, higher-income people (who may or may not be "wealthy") would lose all kinds of deductions, but might still get "windfalls." In some cases, sure, but to present it as if it's a likelihood for most, which is definitely implied, is sheer speculation which is in my estimation backed up by little or no investigation.
The Examiner's Carroll points to the Gang of Six document's absurd assumption that the World's Greatest Deliberative Body will actually "find" (that's the document's actual word) massive amounts of spending to cut as anticipated:
The Armed Services Committee is then charged with finding $80 billion in cuts, Homeland Security $65 billion, Agriculture $11 billion, Energy $6 billion, and Commerce $11 billion. All this budgeting from Democratically controlled committees that haven’t produced a budget in over 800 days!!!
Indeed. What a joke. Without specifics, this isn't a plan, it's just a bunch of nice intentions at best, or deliberate deceptions at worst, which will never materialize.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
We have to pass the "Plan"...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 12:17am.
...so we can know what's in the "Plan"...
→ Sounds like a plan
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 12:23am.
Looks like a plan, but what's with the quacking sound?
Don't forget Queen Nancy was
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 7:45am.
Don't forget Queen Nancy was right one time: We The country did have to elect Barack Obama to find out what he was.
John Kerry has a plan for the Economy
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 12:49am.
and he is going to release it when he is elected.
I believe--
Submitted by milootoole on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 12:55am.
-- that John Kerry's plan has 57 pages of muddled information.
What geniuses, raise taxes by
Submitted by dscott on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 12:55am.
What geniuses, raise taxes by $2 trillion over 10 years and continue spending $1 trillion more than you have EVERY YEAR. So at the end of 10 years we will be $8 trillion MORE in debt.
Are you really going to believe that the same people who can't help themselves deficit spending over a $1 trillion a year are going to hold down their excess spending when the reason for their excess is never addressed?
2012 can't come soon enough, either we rid ourselves of Democrat control of Congress and the POTUS or the country is done, it may even be too late as it is. It's really that simple. You have 15 months to make contingency plans for an exit strategy if the public is so gullible to allow Obama's re-election.
And the reason they're claiming it's a plan...
Submitted by Phryj1 on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 1:10am.
...is because Obama is using it as leverage in the debt ceiling talks. They don't want people to know it's more or less an outline of vague niceties and suggestions. Although, I do think it's funny Obama's 'trump card' doesn't even remotely resemble an implementable budget.
Mr. Cantor, call his bluff!
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
My Plan
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 1:20am.
Cut out all perks for the Imperial Government. Revert back to 2000 budget and federal staffing levels. Defund UN and IMF.
Done. 21 Words. It's a start.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Shut the Dep'ts of Education and Energy too.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 9:10am.
Paying unemployment to the laid off would be cheaper than paying their salaries!
We need to go far beyond the
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 9:14am.
We need to go far beyond the 2000 budget; it's still too much spending.
We need to fill out the subject line.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 10:52am.
Oh wait, we already do. Only idiots that respect no one here refuse to fill out the subject line so their Stupid has to be read twice.
Why...why raise taxes?
Submitted by Order270 on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 2:34am.
The top 10% already fund practically half the budget already. No one can give me one good reason to raise taxes. There simply isn't one (and if we can just stall this thing for another few months the democrats will drop the whole thing completely. Nothing makes a Liberal drop the "raising taxes" debate faster than an election year).
Here is my plan, every bit as
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 3:38am.
Here is my plan, every bit as valid, cut spends and no taxes or debt ceiling increasing. There it is complete and whole.
The American people vs politicians again.
Submitted by Boil It Down on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 4:13am.
God forbid that the interests of the American people get in the way of the never ending spending binge and ever expanding government.
The gang of six "plan" gives them plenty of leeway to oppress the taxpayers further and keep our economy teetering on the edge of the abyss. Nothing changes.
Let's scream for a Balanced Budget Amendment, term limits and reforming the tax code. That would be a good start. -bidn-
It's not a plan. It's a capitulation to the far left
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 5:16am.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Automatic Red flag
Submitted by xraynova on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 7:11am.
Any "Gang" that would have dick durbin as a member, should unequivocally have no credibility when it comes to spending cuts with no increase in taxes.
Now here's a PLAN
Submitted by FVF on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 8:14am.
FROM THE DESK OF F. VENGENCE FLOOK:
Some in Congress have floated the notion of eliminating the charitable deduction from Schedule A to the Form 1040. This would be part of a compromise to raise the debt ceiling. I’m a DON’T RAISE TAXES guy. But I’m also a THE FORM 1040 IS A TERRIBLY UNFAIR INSTRUMENT guy. So which guy wins?
The decision for me is easy because I believe the charitable deduction is one of the MOST UNFAIR things in the entire Internal Revenue Code. Here’s what happens:
1. The taxpayer gets a deduction for his/her charitable deduction. Using other words that mean the same thing, the taxpayer makes charitable deductions using pre-tax money.
2. The charity (also = church) receives the contribution without having to claim it as income. No income tax paid here.
3. The charity (also = church) pays no taxes on the income (“profits”) those contributions generate.
Who let this happen!
The solution is simple:
1. All charitable contributions are made with AFTER-tax money. This is true for EVERYONE. That means the rich and the not rich!
2. Charities may receive these gifts tax-free, but they MUST pay taxes on the income the charity generates each and every year.
Yours in truth,
F. VENGENCE FLOOK
A very clever way to REDUCE
Submitted by dscott on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 3:35pm.
A very clever way to REDUCE the amount of charitable giving and INCREASE the dependency upon government at the expense of the taxpayer.
There is a reason why it's a deduction and charity's/churches are not taxed, they are far more efficient at the delivery of service to the poor and needy than the government is. The government requires a paid staff and paid studies to know what to do and paid buildings to deliver service, a charity/church does all those things at their own expense with volunteers with zero claim upon the taxpayer.
Can you imagine what it would take for the government to do the Red Cross's job? How about the Salvation Army's job? The government would spend BILLIONS and still screw it up. If you want something royally screwed up, call the government.
You're really taking issue
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 9:13am.
You're really taking issue with the use of the word plan? And since when does a plan have to meet a certain page or word count?
issue with plan
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 9:18am.
Understand what you are saying but this is closer to a list of goals. A goal is a finish line while a plan is how you get there.
I have a plan, and it's only five words.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 9:21am.
"Please nuke this threadjacking troll."
If only they would....
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 9:37am.
If only they would....
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال