**Written by Doug Powers
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., argued that additional revenue must be included in upcoming deficit reduction deals, calling the revenue secured by the “fiscal cliff” deal “significant” but “not enough.”
“The President had originally said he wanted $1.6 trillion in revenue,” she said on “Face the Nation.” “He took it down to 1.2 as a compromise in this legislation. We get $620 billion dollars, very significant, high-end tax, changing the high-end tax rate to 39.6 percent, but that is not enough on the revenue side.”
Pelosi declined to go into particulars, saying she was “fairly agnostic” about how to secure more revenue, but implied that closing loopholes and deductions was more likely than revisiting tax rates.
Asked to respond to House Speaker John Boehner’s proposal that Congress should match a debt ceiling hike with commensurate spending cuts, Pelosi said “I don’t think these two things should be related.”
“I think that we should subject what we spend, every taxpayer dollar, whether it be defense or domestic, to the harshest scrutiny,” she said, but argued that has nothing to do with “whether the full faith and credit of the United States of America should be placed in jeopardy.”
Pelosi seeking new revenues already should be fairly cringe-inducing to working people wondering what just happened to their paychecks.
Debt and spending shouldn’t be tied together? In January of 2007, Pelosi said this: “After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.”
In January of 2011, Pelosi said this: “Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra – pay as you go” (the needle flew off the laugh-meter because she said after after presiding over a $5 trillion debt increase as Speaker). Now, in January of 2013, debt and spending should be unrelated. Go figure.
Pelosi also said she wants to eliminate tax subsidies to entities that “don’t need them.” If so, why not begin by scrapping the Hollywood tax breaks that were in the fiscal cliff deal? Hollywood’s been begging the government to raise their taxes, so she should start with the people who want to pay more. Yeah, I know — and risk being disinvited from appearing in the season finale of 30 Rock? Not a chance!
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBeblog comments powered by Disqus
April 23, 2014 07:31 AM by Michelle Malkin
April 17, 2014 11:38 AM by Doug Powers
Another Nobel Prize on the way? Paul Krugman to study income inequality from perspective of 1 percent
April 17, 2014 08:33 AM by Doug Powers
April 15, 2014 10:23 PM by Michelle Malkin
Magazine Photoshop of Jay Carney’s bookcase still more reality-based than his press conference responses
April 12, 2014 09:27 AM by Doug Powers