Nancy Pelosi seeks at least $4 trillion cut to deficit as GOP moves toward Obama on taxes in talks


Okay, first things first: That so-called “fiscal cliff” is more like a “fiscal slope” or “fiscal curb." Or speed bump.

That said, Roll Call is reporting that the GOP is bending on taxes as fiscal speed bump talks begin, and that the impending fake-doomy, scary, catastrophic, omg the world is going to end Cliffageddon can be averted. Apparently, Congressional leaders don't like the looks of the stock market these days, and you know what that means... magically breaking gridlock... sort of:

The four top leaders in Congress all expressed confidence that they could avert the fiscal cliff after Speaker John A. Boehner offered up revenue and Democrats agreed to pursue spending cuts during an hourlong meeting Friday at the White House.

The Ohio Republican told reporters that he proposed a framework for dealing with the cliff that would tie revenue to spending cuts “consistent with the president’s call for a balanced approach.”

Luckily, the "Democratic leader opposes cutting Medicare benefits to strike a deal," meaning Nancy Pelosi is against compromising at the expense of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.

Many of us Dems have been very concerned about ideas being floated such as raising the Medicare eligibility age above 65, a policy that is included in Paul Ryan’s Kill Medicare Budget plan. Here's Nancy:

Pelosi hopes the negotiations will yield at least $4 trillion in deficit reduction, although she said she wasn't speaking for everyone. Here's more of what she told reporters after meeting with President Obama and congressional leaders, via The Hill:

"Even if we didn't come out of the room with a solution … we came out with a plan of action, an understanding of what we wanted to achieve, a timetable for how to get it done [and] what would spring from those discussions... Each of us had some idea about how we can get this done in a way that instills confidence even as we proceed down the path."

MSNBC is reporting that Republicans are still very resistant to letting tax cuts for the very rich expire, and that Democrats will still have to make "tough compromises."

So will the tax break number move from those making $250,000 and over to a million and over? And what about Medicare and Medicaid? I'm not feeling as optimistic as I'd like.

And just for good measure, let's remember what GOP idol Ronald Reagan said: “Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit.”

  • if the republicans balk at the $250k number offer them a simple adjustment 3% for every $50,00 over Clinton levels. 300k for 42.6%, 350k for 45.6% all the way up to 500k for 54.6% if a quarter million seems to be too much give them a half but make that tax bracket pay the highest amount. We still counting folks as a small business at half a million? 

    In my opinion this is a simple pick off argument, there are only so many folks in the margins between $250-300, even fewer between 350-400. And some of those people in the margins have said "Raise my taxes if it will benefit my country" this is shown by the fact that Obama won, even Bill Krystol admitted that under a 50% top tax rate during the Reagan years growth was just fine. The republicans have no clothes but if the number 250,000 is such a sticking point for them, offer them a item for an item. which dollar amount sounds better to you okay well this is how much we need to tax it to make up for all the folks we aren't covering by letting them stay in this lower tax bracket. 

    Honestly while nobody wants their taxes to go up if everybody was at Clinton levels yes there would be a pinch but just like during the recession we would work our way out of it. As Obama care is strengthened folks will save more money on health care which will reduce out of pocket costs and produce more money to be spent in other areas. If republicans really wish to strengthen social security make them increase the cap, make the cap $300,000 or hey they seem to love half a million, make the cap $500,000 dollars. That adds even more money to the coffers and shores it up for generations to come. Republicans really don't have an argument in this they just have excuses, unfortunately the power of the voices that they give their ears to is diminishing. If money can't buy you an election, and if people are using data, social media, and organization better it's only a matter of time before you pay attention ONLY to big money at your own peril.

  • David G

    Both sides continue to float "cautious optimism" while firmly stating why there's really no reason to have any.  There's intransigence here and neither side will budge... Look for the fiscal bump/slope to be traveled over before anything happens... And that, BTW, is not necessarily a bad thing.  DG