By Stephen Henderson

Detroit Free Press

The shouts and accusations have begun to die down. Now, a credible deal to keep paying the nation’s bills and begin major restructuring to eliminate the deficit is emerging.

The outline of the plan authored by the bipartisan Senate Gang of Six should look familiar: It borrows heavily from the report of Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson when they led the so-called debt commission. There’s tax reform that lowers rates but closes loopholes and tightens deductions. There are spending cuts and caps. There are mandates to lower the cost of Social Security and Medicare without putting the financial pinch to the most vulnerable recipients.

(A good summary of the plan can be found at: http://thehill.com/images/stories/gangofsix — plan.pdf.)

One of the critical remaining questions is whether there’s enough time to get the legislation worked out and passed — particularly through the GOP-led House of Representatives — before the Aug. 2 debt ceiling deadline. But it’s worth reiterating some of the highlights — and low points — of the debate so far:

—There’s no reason this discussion had to reach the level of crisis it has. The need for deficit elimination has been obvious for some time, and it was President Barack Obama who engaged the debt commission in the first place. Yet Democrats didn’t incorporate any deficit-reduction ideas into their last round of budget discussions, wasting a lot of time. Republicans were no better, in that they seized on the issue of raising the debt ceiling (something Ronald Reagan did 17 times) to push their myopic anti-tax agenda.

This is serious stuff, and it required a more serious approach from both sides much earlier in the process.

—The Gang of Six plan is strong with ideas, but somewhat light on details about how savings would be achieved. It says things like: Commerce would find $11 billion in savings. Energy would find $6 billion. Even an agreement would not make such general mandates into reality; that will require leadership over an extended period of time to be sure that the spending cuts take.

The plan does better on Social Security and Medicare fixes, outlining the parameters for change (a Social Security fix must assure solvency for 75 years) and process (the whole deficit reduction plan would be voided if the Social Security solution does not get 60 votes). But it still leaves much of the specific work (how to hold entitlement growth to GDP growth, essentially) to legislative committees that will have to be focused to deliver real solutions.

—The “we don’t need new revenue” factions of the GOP have backed themselves into a corner that’s increasingly difficult to defend. The Gang of Six plan would effectively raise some people’s taxes by eliminating loopholes and deductions, but it would also lower rates. So is that a tax increase? Does it violate the inane candidate pledges many Republicans have signed?

If there’s one thing this entire controversy has taught us, it’s that absolutes don’t work for smart governance. Elected officials need to be able to comprehend complex issues and come up with sensible solutions that are grounded in specific circumstances.

Even accounting for the downturn, the Bush tax cuts have taken more than $1 trillion out of the Treasury — not because tax cuts are inherently bad, but because tax cuts without spending cuts are awful.

Polls this week consistently show Americans have distanced themselves from the idea that our troubles could be solved without new revenues. It will be interesting, especially going forward into 2012, to see what impact that might have on the GOP’s most radical elements.

—It’s significant that the Gang of Six plan resists the kinds of Social Security and Medicare changes that would deeply affect recipients. These programs are worth saving and paying for. Their social benefits far outweigh their economic costs (at least when they’re funded properly), and it ought to be unthinkable for anyone to imagine going back to an America without them.

It has become far too fashionable simply to blame budget problems on the existence of various “entitlements.” But they are actually crowning achievements in our quest to be a more humane, more just society. They are troubled, indeed, and Washington must find ways to manage their costs and balance their finances if they are to be sustained over the long term.

The Gang of Six plan suggests a good starting point. Congress and the president should go from there.

Stephen Henderson is editorial page editor for the Detroit Free Press.