Pelosi Outlines Revenue-Free Path Forward On Debt Limit Fight

Source: Talking Points Memo

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi acknowledged Friday that Democrats may reluctantly accept a last-minute compromise to avoid a default that involves up to $2.5 trillion in spending cuts -- without agreed-upon new tax revenues -- if Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are protected from the debt limit brinksmanship.

The plan would place a firewall between entitlement spending and the threat of default, upsetting GOP plans to force deep, immediate cuts to those programs. And if, as a result, the GOP declined the offer, Democrats would agree to punt the questions of entitlement spending and tax revenues to a future, streamlined legislative process.

The potential endgame, Pelosi said, would meet an arbitrary GOP requirement that Congress must only grant President Obama as much new borrowing authority as he's willing to accept in spending cuts, and leave for a later date a twinned fight over revenues and social insurance programs.

"We're willing to bite the bullet and make serious cuts in discretionary spending," Pelosi told a small group of reporters and bloggers. "That could go to a trillion dollars or more. And the interest saved on that can take us to like a trillion and a half dollars saved."

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/pelosi-outlines-revenue-free-path-forward-on-debt-limit-fight.php?ref=fpb

Education?

Get ready to bend over for good.

Because that's about the only item left in the federal budget actually large enough to absorb such cuts...

ETA: I can dream, can't I? :)

as far as I know, its been Boner and the WH who were in talks and reid and pelosi were left out of the loop.

" I told Speaker Boehner, I’ve told Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, I’ve told Harry Reid, and I’ve told Mitch McConnell I want them here at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president

secret meetings.

"Reid and other Democrats warned the administration officials in the meeting that they might not support a deal between Obama and Boehner if kept out of the loop.

“It was a heated session,” said a senior Democratic senator who attended the lunch. “There’s a basic lack of trust with the president.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/172895-reid-confronts-obama-budget-director-on-possible-debt-ceiling-deal

Or was that taken off the table?

I hope this is not true.

negotiations. She's just falling in line with Obama and Boehner, apparently.

but its just the teeniest tiniest sliver better than anything else I've heard, though I doubt the pukes will agree to it.

My opinion why this is the teeniest tiniest sliver better is based on the following:

If the Pukes suddenly get hit by a sanity ray and go for option 1 and take what cuts they can get with no new revenue, but agree to leave the Big 3 alone, they could claim to their nut wing that they got cuts and to their rich/corporatists, we kept your taxes from being raised, and we would have thrown grandma under the bus for you too, but those damn Congressional Dems wouldn't let us. Then they also dodge the bullet of angry SS,and Medicare beneficiaries blaming them for cuts so close to a major election year.

Here's where it would be a win for Dems: "We the Congressional Dems Saved the Big 3!" and both we and President Obama tried to get revenues, but the PuKEs wanted to protect the wealthy at all costs, which would be TRUE.

My guess is the Pukes won't agree to this either though cause they don't want Pelosi to get the credit for a possilbe solution . Plus as we all know Pukes are greedy and want everything.

Option 2 has more risks IMHO. Speaker Pelosi will have to define what a "streamlined" legislative process means. Plus if the Pukes only have to promise they will talk about revenues rather than guarenteeing raising any, then the Congressional Dems and the President should only have to promise they will talk about further cuts to anything else, especially the big three, not guarentee they will make any. Anything else is way too one sided and unacceptable.

But I am not holding my breath for the Pukes to accept either deal. Still I commend Nancy for at least trying to take the Big 3 completely off the table. Its more than anyone else at the negotiating tables for our side has been willing to do so far.

More tax revenues = cuts to entitlements
Keep entitlements = no new taxes

sigh.

and close down several unneeded bases overseas as well as the elimination of several wasteful weapons programs, will easily equal $250,000,000 x 10 years = $2.5 trillion dollars

Our real problem is trade.

These one sided trade deals have much to do with the trade deficit.

Medicare and Medicaid while working within the framework already set by Obama and Boehner.

I'm not sure it can be done, or that it will be done. In hindsight, it's clear that Obama has had those programs in his sights since his campaign, when he chided Hillary on not being willing to ensure the future of Social Security.

Silly me, at the time, I actually thought he meant something positive. Then, he thunk up the Cat Food Commission and appointed Simpson to head it and I started kicking myself yet again for not being more suspicious 2007-2008.

Not that it would have mattered: He had already been annointed well before I ever jumped on his bandwagon. Belated evelation of how Harry Reid sold him to the Party Poobahs made that clear.

Lord, I hate being naive.

Also, like how your response gives Republicans a free pass. Do you seriously think we would be talkng about such cuts if Republicans were not about to plunge the country into a Great Depression. As the LA Times story notes, President Obama was desparately trying to keep the Nation from going into default. Lets not start acting like Jim DeMint and dismiss default as not a big deal.

At the end of the day, you have a party dominating the House that is absolutely willing to destroy our Nation's economy because they think the American people will blame President Obama. Well, sadly, they are right. If the country loses, they win.

Already, despite his attempts to avoid default, the Nation will go into default under his watch, because Republicans perhaps rightly believed that the American people will blame him. And, here is your post, saying that President Obama always meant to knife social security and Medicare.

Well, what about the Ryan voucher plan? Where is the outrage when Republicans pass a balanced budget amendment that permanent protects tax cuts to the rich?

The problem is that we Blame Democrats, and give Republicans a free pass. Do you seriously think that we would be having these conversations if we did not have a Republican dominated House?

Some folks were pushing the idea that Democrats should sit out the 2010 election because Democrats were not moving fast enough. Well, how did apathy work? It doesn't. So, now we are left with Pelosi now waiving the white flag. Complete surrender on the tax issue.

respect and trust. The more the right wing crazies went after her, the more I loved her. I think many miss her after seeing what Bonner is about.

...something Democrats said they would not accept - Trillions in cuts with no new tax revenues. I guess we can call it a victory because Social Security and Medicare aren't touched, but what is to keep Republicans from pulling this stunt in 2012?

The only way we can prevent that is by electing Democrats in 2012. We need to win in 2012! Not just complain. We need to win and take the House back to stop this extortion.

The repugs would not be so cocky if you had brought impeachment upon */Cheney. I will never forgive you for that Nancy.