{"id":13232,"date":"2013-01-06T12:03:17","date_gmt":"2013-01-06T17:03:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/?p=13232"},"modified":"2013-01-06T12:03:17","modified_gmt":"2013-01-06T17:03:17","slug":"pelosi-not-enough-revenue-in-fiscal-cliff-deal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/2013\/01\/06\/pelosi-not-enough-revenue-in-fiscal-cliff-deal\/","title":{"rendered":"Pelosi: “Not enough” revenue in “fiscal cliff” deal"},"content":{"rendered":"

CBS News<\/em> has the story Pelosi: “Not enough” revenue in “fiscal cliff” deal<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

“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.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I am glad that Pelosi made this clear.\u00a0 I am sure that many people were ready to claim that the President and the progressives in government got all they wanted out of the fiscal bump negotiations, and now all we need to do is cut the budget.\u00a0 The “deal” was $1 trillion short on the revenue side.\u00a0 The “deal” also had some items that only further concentrate wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people.\u00a0 This last part is something that is definitely taking our country in the wrong\u00a0 direction.\u00a0 This is much worse than first part merely takes us not quite far enough in the right direction.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CBS News has the story Pelosi: “Not enough” revenue in “fiscal cliff” deal. 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,” […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[166],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-13232","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-stevegsposts","7":"czr-hentry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13232","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13232"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13232\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13233,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13232\/revisions\/13233"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}