US News

House Republicans pick apart ‘Gang of Six’ deficit plan

WASHINGTON — House Republicans are finding more than a few flaws with the “Gang of Six” deficit plan, but have not rejected it outright, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.

The latest evidence comes in an analysis by House Budget Committee Republicans produced on Tuesday night. According to the analysis, the Gang of Six plan “appears to include a $2 trillion revenue increase” relative to current tax rules.

The Gang of Six plan says its tax increase is $1.2 trillion compared to a “plausible” baseline that assumes the Bush tax cuts for the middle class are extended permanently. But that baseline also assumes a revenue increase of $700 billion or so from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy — hence the $2 trillion total that the House Republicans claim the plan produces.

The plan appears to rely heavily on defense cuts for its near-term spending reductions.

The proposal is also light on specifics when it comes to reducing costs of entitlements and does not attempt to scale back the 2010 health care law, which conservatives argue has increased problems with entitlements.

Still, even the House analysis finds many features to like in the plan. It recognizes the need to overhaul the tax code and lower rates to enhance competitiveness and economic efficiency. It has reasonably strong enforcement mechanisms to contain future spending. And it calls for changes to curb medical malpractice excesses, the analysis says.

Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a statement that the plan “increases revenues while failing to seriously address exploding federal spending on health care.”

“There are also serious concerns that the proposal’s substance on spending falls far short of what is needed to achieve the savings it claims,” the statement said. “Nevertheless, this effort serves as a sign that we can work together on a bipartisan basis to make a serious down payment now to avert the debt-fueled economic crisis before us.”

To read more, visit The Wall Street Journal