Pelosi says leaders looking at two-tiered debt approach - Spending Cuts Now - Tax Increases Later

[boston bean]

snip....House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Saturday night that congressional leaders are considering a two-tiered approach to raising the debt ceiling and reducing the nation’s long-term budget deficit.

snip....Pelosi said the leaders are looking at a two-tiered approach, which would likely combine immediate spending cuts while creating a process for Congress to enact entitlement and tax reforms over the next several months. She hinted, however, that the revenue would come in the second “tier” of the process.

“One option is to do something in two tiers, and I don’t think we can accomplish what we need to do in deficit reduction without revenues,” Pelosi said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/173133-pelosi-says-leaders-looking-at-two-tiered-debt-approach

[leveymg]

1. How can she keep a straight face and deliver this message. Plan is DOA.

Or else, Nancy has been tippling the Kool-aid, and she needs to seek immediate medical assistance.

[FourScore]

46. Yeah, she knows that. But she's gotta do something. n/t

[spanone]

2. why not the other way around.

[me b zola]

4. Why are there going to b any cuts to social programs at all?

[SusanaMontana41]

15. Ah, that is the question. The bill should be DOA. n/t

[FirstLight]

10. +1000

though, i hate to say it...I am not surprised at this

[Auntie Bush]

13. That was my immediate thought/question!

[kenny blankenship]

16. Because the role of the Democrats is to be the perpetual RUBE to the GOP

"They said this Authorization of the Use of Military Force Resolution was full of safeguards against the President just going to war against Iraq without returning to Congress with hard evidence that war was justified... We don't know what happened - Gosh, he just ignored our deal and all the carefully worded clauses and provisos. Who coulda known he'd do a thing like that? Not us!"

[TomCADem]

3. Gah! Not even the revenues that were promised to Obama and...

...we are still promising to do entitlement reform with no money promised on the table. The Republicans will happily say that they got a better deal from congressional Democrats if this goes through. If the Republicans also get just a short term increase, then they put the President in the position of having to veto the debt increase.

A short term debt increase would allow Republicans to bitch about this for the next six months.

[grahamhgreen]

5. Bullshit! Just like they were going to "FIX" the health care bill later. It will never happen!!!

[NightWatcher]

12. So you're not buying it this time?

Me neither.

[eilen]

48. And how about those expiring Bush tax cuts?

Credibility Gap 101

[gratuitous]

20. They'll get to it, they'll get to it

Right after the side agreements on labor and the environment for NAFTA. I think I'm the only person on the planet who remembers that bullshit promise. "Gee gratuitous, why are you so cynical?" Because I fucking pay attention?

[Big Blue Marble]

44. Yes, and Clinton told us in 96 that

he would make repairs to the 'welfare reform" legislation after the election.

[Parker CA]

6. Sounds like the talk of a short-term extension being off the table is now off the table.

A staggered approach is just that, no? Part now, all cuts, and part later with more cuts and undefined revenues, requiring a vote and another political fight before election.

Sounds like Boehner and Cantor may be nearing their goal of $1T now and $3T sometime a bit down the road that they've been pushing from the start.

[Blasphemer]

7. Uh huh. So why not increase revenues now and cut spending later?

This "two-tiered" approach conveniently takes increasing revenues off the table when the make-up of Congress can completely change in a little over a year. If the GOP controls both houses of Congress after the 2012 elections, there will be no later.

[Parker CA]

8. Or the revenue increase is the non-extension of Bush tax cuts which would already happen + more cuts

to entitlement programs, all before 2012, so Obama would get double hammered by having this fight twice.

[DJ13]

9. That would be a(nother) betrayal of the American people

Stop the bullshit, we all know "later" never comes in DC, and the immediate cuts will be in the already too low, already stagnant safety nets that more and more Americans are forced to turn to while you politicians sit on your asses debating everything BUT jobs.

[Me.]

11. I'll Gladly Pay You Tuesday For A Hamburger Today

[tblue]

18. Yuk yuk! I will gladly take your hamburger and pay for it in the 2nd tier.

No dice!!! Bad deal!!! No way is this okay!

[madrchsod]

19. you needed this in your post....

[Me.]

43. Perfect First Tier Response

[BattyDem]

14. Here's an idea ...

Why not simply raise the debt ceiling now and do both spending cuts and tax increases later?


Seriously ... if the Dems are stupid enough to make cuts now and trust that the Repukes will keep their word and do tax increases later, then we are all screwed! :(

[lonestarnot]

37. No shit.

[BattyDem]

39. Apparently, that solution is too "complicated" for Congress!

:(

[laruemtt]

17. as long as the spending cuts

are only in the MIC, that elephant in the room.

[BeyondGeography]

21. The Republican stuff now, the Democratic stuff TBD...grrrrreat

We suck.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

22. Uhhhh - NO. Once again "entitlement" cuts are unnecessary and...

...any revenue increases will be dodged ie: the 'second tier' will never happen.

Completely unacceptable.

[AlabamaLibrul]

23. Keep kicking the can. n/t

[SnoopDog]

24. Supposedly we have the Presidency and the Senate, yet

Our 'government' ALWAYS sides with destroying the middle class.

There probability is no other recourse....

1776 anybody?

[jefferson_dem]

25. I'm reading that this two-stage deal is dead on arrival.

This is all posturing to make the Dems look like the reasonable ones (like they are). Teabaggers don't like the two-step because they think the commission that holds the cards at stage two will recommend raising taxes, which is like water to these draculas.

Basically, Boner is fucked. His caucus will not agree to anything other than the cut, cap, and bullshit they've already passed.

[gateley]

28. DOA where? With whom? I'm not following -- thanks. nt

[jefferson_dem]

32. The Teabagger Gods don't like the two-step.

Just had a member of the House leadership email me to say the "two tier plan" being floated is "sh*t" and he blames Boehner. Wow.
http://twitter.com/#!/EWErickson/statuses/94957627225804800

We've already had 17 commissions over 3 decades & $13 trillion in new debt. No more commissions. http://t.co/PLV4OIm #CutCapBalance
http://twitter.com/#!/JimDeMint/statuses/94940568676864000

[Parker CA]

33. They're intent on nothing but NO to everything. A whole bunch of stupid in congress. nt

[gateley]

40. Well I like that they're blaming Boehner :-). I'm not sure the

Dems are going to embrace this, either.

Thanks for the clarification! :hi:

[Parker CA]

30. Hope this is true. Sounded like Pelosi was suggesting there may be agreement on what Cantor

and Boehner have wanted with their staggered approach, but I agree that getting them to herd the cats on voting for something with any tax increases or even revenues would be tough.

Problem is that in this situation there comes a time when someone will give.

[jefferson_dem]

35. I'm betting that, in the end, the GOP would rather kick the whole thing down the road by ceding

authority to raise the limit to Obama (McConnell plan) ... and "live to fight another day" ... than agree to anything that could be construed as a tax hike. They are freaking zeolots. Basically, POTUS will get what he wanted in the beginning -- a clean vote. Problem is, that may not come until the markets start tanking. :scared:

[Big Blue Marble]

45. It is not Boner's caucus that will vote for this shit.

It will be delivered by the dems.

[mmonk]

26. I figured that would be it. What a crock.

[Proles]

27. Good Lord.

Just call the repub's bluff, pull the 14th, and let the lawyers deal with the rest.

Clinton would have done it, why not Obama?

[gateley]

29. Clinton SAYS he would have done it, who knows if he would

have? He's the one who moved the party toward the middle, so I'm not so sure he would have risked that. But maybe he would have, who knows? And maybe Obama might resort to that, too, even though he hasn't used it as a threat. It's not over yet.

[creeksneakers2]

41. There is no 14th Amendment option

All this stuff on the Intenet about it is a hoax.

[QC]

31. Only a bona fide sucker would take a deal like this.

Or someone who just doesn't care much about poor people and old people.

[msongs]

34. SHEESH isnt there one effing democrat in DC that will quit pimping the r epublican agenda. nt

[high density]

36. I don't want spending cuts during a deep recession

WTF are these idiots thinking?

[loyalsister]

38. This gives Boehner cover

until after 2012 when I'm sure he is hoping to have gotten rid of some of the tea party influence. They are destroying the republican party and the halfway "reasonable" republicans know it.

[FogerRox]

42. hey Nancy, about that 2 teired plan, STFU.

[WVRICK13]

47. We Have One Party In The US

and it isn't the correct one.