Two progressive organizations have found themselves in the unusual
position of being on the opposite side of House Democratic Leader Nancy
Pelosi. Over the course of the past two years, the former House Speaker
has been the most significant obstacle to the ongoing effort to slash
entitlements and cut social spending.
But a series of recent comments, and reports that Pelosi was
willing to accept draconian cuts as part of a debt-ceiling deal, have
liberals worried that their most powerful and passionate defender may be
buckling on the issue.
During a recent press conference, and again during an interview
with Charlie Rose, the California Congresswoman said that she would
support what's known as the Simpson-Bowles plan, a budget proposal that
was created by the co-chairs of a fiscal commission set up by President
Obama (dubbed the "Catfood Commission" by progressives). The plan was
rejected by members of the commission, failing to win the necessary
votes to move to a vote in Congress. Yet the co-chairs -- former
Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Morgan Stanley director
Erskin Bowles, a Democrat -- have worked recently to revive it, and the
political class speaks of it as if it passed and is an official
recommendation of the commission.
At the end of March, a version of the Simpson-Bowles plan was given a vote on the House floor. It was annihilated, 382-38, with Pelosi and most Democrats voting against it.
But Pelosi, the day after the vote, said that she could still
support the plan if it stuck more closely to the original version put
out by Simpson and Bowles. "I felt fully ready to vote for that myself,
thought it was not even a controversial thing ... When we had our
briefing with our caucus members, people felt pretty ready to vote for
it. Until we saw it in print," she said. "It was more a caricature of
Simpson Bowles, and that's why it didn't pass. If it were actually
Simpson-Bowles, I would have voted for it."
Yet when the Simpson-Bowles plan had been originally unveiled, Pelosi called it "simply unacceptable."
No comments:
Post a Comment