Has senator Kerry given any sign of what he thinks of the Gang of Six proposal?

[Mass]

[karynnj]

1. The closest thing that I can think of is that he signed the letter

back in March that 64 Senators signed that backed an overall bipartisan approach. (Here is Shaheen's press release (it was the first up in the google search I used) - http://shaheen.senate.gov/news/press/release/?id=05bee115-f795-426e-9fb2-5072f03fc6de

Kerry's floor speeches have all backed a comprehensive overall of taxes, but also strongly argued that nothing other than minor tweaks - which did not cut benefits - would be needed to make SS solvent into the next century. He has also spoken of not cutting Medicare benefits.

At this point, the gang of six's plan is not at the kind of detail level that I think anyone could say they are definitively for it - as there are likely many important details up in the air. It also has not been scored by CBO - and might not be specific and detailed enough for scoring to be done yet. Durbin also says that there is no way it could be ready to be voted on before August 2.

[Inuca]

2. Ezra Klein

(also known as my secret way too young boyfriend :-)) on this http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/can-the-gang-of-sixs-plan-pass/2011/07/20/gIQAlQ4XPI_blog.html (icludes link to pdf of the whole proposal for who has the time & patience).

Can the Gang of Six's plan pass? There are two answers to that question. The first is "not before the debt limit comes due." The second is, "probably not after that, either."

[Mass]

3. Given what seems to be in the proposal, it is certainly a good thing it will not pass.

[karynnj]

4. I actually think the best solution at this point is a clean raising of the debt limit

high enough that it does not have to be done again until the election. This could be the result if plans from both sides are rejected.

That would avert the crisis, not gut anything and not take any money out of the economy - which given that it actually should have more stimulation is at least not harm. The fact that Obama seems committed to reducing the debt as a goal makes this less likely.

I do think that some of the ideas are not bad, but now is not the time to do them. (I do think simplifying the tax code is a good idea - but the last time they did that, it quickly got complicated again - as people had lobbyists write exemptions for them.

[Mass]

5. I agree with the clean raising, and hopefully this is what will happen.

The Gang of Six proposal seems to be similar to the Catfood commission proposal. There are a few good things, but a lot of things that are not good, such as the lowering of the tax rates on the very rich, with the pretext of closing loopholes. But it seems to me that the mix will hurt the middle class, while it will not hurt the rich (I would need to see numbers for getting rid of the mortgage interest exemption, for example). As for Medicare and Medicaid, the devil is in the details.

[karynnj]

6. For the wealthiest, I think many of the loopholes are eliminated by

alternative minimum tax any way, so I suspect that for the upper middle class, it likely lowers their rates. I have no idea what it would do for the super wealthy as I don't have any idea how it would affect any of their current ways of reducing taxes, but I suspect that just like last time - the loopholes will return in different form.

I think you may be on to something with middle class, who own homes (unlike the upper middle class where the ATM is currently triggered) might actually pay more. They will get lower rates, but losing the deduction could hurt them badly. Another impact is that it could lower the value of homes if it cuts demand for houses.

[Luftmensch067]

7. Found this in a local paper online

Kerry, D-Mass., was more definitive, saying in a prepared statement:
"It's a comprehensive proposal to put our fiscal house in order and it puts both spending and revenues on the table.

"It deserves serious consideration, and it's a worthy starting point for the budget discussion," Kerry said. "Whether it comes in time to deal with an Aug. 2 deadline is less clear, but most importantly it's a serious good faith effort to find common ground."

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2011/07/21/news/9912615.txt

To me, that's JK saying he's glad there's SOMETHING being discussed and that it leaves room for negotiation. I'm sure he's not in favor of anything that would threaten low-income benefits in a fundamental way.

[Mass]

8. I read this this way, but I prefer Frank and McGovern's position here.

When was the last time a deal went toward being more progressive rather than less. It may be a worthy starting point, but the WH proposed that as a worthy proposal, and this is where I have a problem.

[Luftmensch067]

9. I very much fear that you're right about the eventual income

As the daughter of an elderly mother entirely reliant on social services, I VERY much fear it. But I know JK will fight for the elderly and disabled and I have to hope that Obama will, as well. These are scary times and history (with few exceptions) does not suggest that the wealthy will lose this one.

Thank God for Frank and McGovern and Bernie Sanders -- we need their voices, but we also need someone like JK to speak up for having the conversation at all.

[ObamaKerryDem]

10. Took the words right out of my mouth!

I have family who are in much the same position as your mother, so this is incredibly real to me as well--to so many out there, on so many levels..I am proud of the leadership JK has shown on this and am proud also of the President, that he isn't backing down from his stance on this either (not just giving into/accepting the GOP proposals on their face, at least..)...I hope he will stick to his principles as well. Bipartisanship is a nice concept and it would sure be great if we could have more accord in our process. BUT some things are non-negotiable.

I still have faith that he will stand his ground. But we need voices to remind/ encourage him and I'm glad we have that in JK and the other progressives you mentioned.