Associated Press headline today: "Coburn drops out of group seeking to cut deficit."

So we're now down to a "Gang of Five," I guess.

For those who don't slavishly follow every power alignment in Washington (which is to say, most people), this is supposed to be momentous news of some sort or another because the "Gang of Six" was supposed to be the sober, realist politicians (three from each party) who were going to hammer out a budget agreement which both sides could live with. A daunting task, to be sure, now made even harder by the fact that Republican Senator Tom Coburn has apparently dropped out of the effort.

Before we delve into what it all means, I have to say one thing. The whole imagery of "gangs" in Congress has always seemed to me to be grossly wrongheaded. I mean, seriously, "gangs"?

For the historically ignorant, the term just brings up thoughts of West Side Story, fighting over turf, and urban despair. Not exactly a homey scenario for politicians, right from the get-go. Secondly, the term is wildly inaccurate, since street gangs are known for fighting each other to the death, but political "gangs" are supposed to be bipartisan efforts to hash out a bill that both sides can agree upon. A "bipartisan gang" is an oxymoron, in other words.

For the historically aware, it gets even worse. The term comes from China's Chairman Mao, who warned his wife: "Do not try to begin a gang of four to accumulate power." Unheeding, she went on to do just that. The "Gang of Four" arose during China's disastrous "Cultural Revolution," but almost immediately after Mao's death they were all charged with treason for betraying the Communist revolution. In other words, they were not sufficiently "pure" enough to the central Party. Once again, from political history, the "gang of..." moniker had nothing whatsoever to do with bipartisanship -- quite the opposite, in fact. It came from a power grab, not from power-sharing.

Jump forward to recent American history, and everyone seems to have forgotten both the Chinese origins of the term, as well as the dictionary definition of "gang." It's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, in other words. The "Gang of Fourteen" in the Senate were the ones who stopped the "nuclear option" of filibustering, a few years back. Two summers ago, there was a "Gang of Six" in the Senate, which was supposed to come up with a compromise version of the healthcare reform bill. And now, we've got a different "Gang of Six" tackling the deficit (which has apparently been reduced to a "Gang of Five").

But this year's Gang may not have much more success than the healthcare Gang, which was nothing less than a spectacular failure. Democratic Senator Max Baucus led the 2009 Gang of Six, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, one of the key committees which had to approve the healthcare reform bill. The Gang of Six represented a gigantic waste of time, in the end, as Democrats were pressed over and over again to water down their proposal, which garnered almost zero Republican support when it came time to vote. Instead of being a Utopian bipartisan effort, its sole accomplishment was to further run out the clock.

This year's Gang of Six is likely to have a similar result. When the budgetary Gang was announced, they were confident that they would be able to put together a budget plan which hewed closely to the Bowles-Simpson plan (which we usually refer to, for brevity's sake, as the "B.S. plan") and which would garner bipartisan support in both houses. They didn't seem to notice that this was going to be almost impossible, given the current political realities in Congress.

Since they former the Gang, others have gotten tired of waiting for them to produce, and gone ahead with their own budget plans. Paul Ryan not only introduced a budget plan, but got the House Republicans to vote for it. President Barack Obama has introduced two budget plans, to date. Other groups in both the House and Senate have put forth their own plans. Yet the Gang of Six has come up with precisely nothing so far. They tend to get a little miffed, whenever this is pointed out to them. As far as they are concerned, they are the only "serious" group in Washington tackling this issue, and everyone else should just hold their breath and wait for the tablets to be handed down from on high. This is only slightly exaggerating the case, as can be seen whenever any of the Gang of Six gets interviewed by the media. The sense of "everybody stand back... we're going to introduce our plan any day now... just wait for it, and ignore all the other plans which already exist" shines through in every interview I've seen to date.

Once again, the clock is running out. And, once again, the Gang will probably be sidelined in the end, because of their inability to come up with a compromise either side can live with, in any sort of timely manner. They're already in the process of being eclipsed by the efforts led by the White House. Vice President Joe Biden is now in charge of hammering out some agreement, and he's meeting with the party leaders from both houses, instead of a just a gang of senators.

So while today's news of Senator Coburn dropping out of the current Gang of Six is mildly interesting, to those of us who watch these things the way that people used to scrutinize the posters on the walls in Beijing (back in the Gang of Four era), ultimately it's probably going to be meaningless news. Because of their delay, the Gang of Six (Five?) is likely not even going to be relevant when the real deal gets struck at Biden's table. This Gang will likely be forgotten about in much the same way the healthcare Gang of Six has been forgotten about, unless they're remembered for their procrastination and inability to hit the window of relevance in Washington.

Of course, because the media seems to love the term, sadly there will likely be a future "Gang of Some Even Number" which excites all the powerbrokers before massively disappointing everyone all over again. In fact, it may even enter the permanent lexicon as one of those odd "group" nouns, like a "murder of crows" or a "gaggle of geese." In future, whenever a gathering of politicians from the upper chamber are spotted in public, perhaps the correct identifier will be: "Oh, look, there go a gang of senators."

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant