Fiscal cliff: Private bargaining, public wrangling

WASHINGTON (AP) - In a test of divided government, the White House and congressional Republicans bargained in secret and sparred in public Tuesday over a deal to prevent year-end tax increases for middle class millions and spending cuts to the military as well as other federal programs.
Officials disclosed that President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner had exchanged at least partial proposals in the past two days.
Details were sparse and evidence of significant progress scarcer still, although officials said the president had offered to reduce his initial demand for $1.6 trillion in higher tax revenue over a decade to $1.4 trillion. There was no indication he was relenting on his insistence - strongly opposed by most Republicans - that tax rates rise at upper incomes.
Boehner sounded unimpressed in remarks on the House floor at midday.
"The longer the White House slow-walks this process, the closer our economy gets to the fiscal cliff," he said, declaring that Obama had yet to identify specific cuts to government benefit programs that the president would support as part of an agreement that also would raise federal tax revenue.
In rebuttal, the White House swiftly detailed numerous proposals Obama has made to cut spending, including recommendations to cull $340 million from Medicare over a decade and an additional $250 billion from other government benefit programs.
The House Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, challenged Boehner to allow a vote on the president's proposal to extend most expiring tax cuts while letting them lapse at higher incomes.
She predicted it would gain "overwhelming approval," even in the GOP-controlled House.
Boehner's office took the step - unusual in secretive talks - of announcing that Republicans "sent the White House a counter-offer that would achieve tax and entitlement reform to solve our looming debt crisis and create more American jobs."
Both sides say they want a deal to prevent damage to the economy, but that stated commitment has been accompanied by a fierce battle to gain the political high ground in negotiations - and the occasional comment that one side or the other would be willing to let the deadline pass without a deal unless it got acceptable terms.
Republicans acknowledge that Obama has an advantage in one respect, citing his re-election last month after a race in which he made higher taxes on the wealthy a centerpiece of his campaign.
At the same time, Republicans hold powerful leverage of their own, the certainty that by spring the president will be forced to ask Congress to raise the government's borrowing authority. It was just such a threat that previously allowed them to extract $1 trillion in spending cuts from the White House and Democratic lawmakers, a situation that Obama has vowed he won't let happen again.
In his noontime remarks on the House floor, Boehner said, "Let's be honest. We're broke. The plan we offered is consistent with the president's call for a balanced approach."
"We're still waiting for the White House" to do the same," added the Ohio Republican.
GOP senators across the Capitol soon echoed his remarks.
"You have to ask the question, Is the president obsessed with raising taxes?" said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, a member of the GOP leadership.
Referring to the president's occasional outside-the-Beltway trips to build public support for his position, Thune said Obama was "doing a victory lap" after the campaign.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said GOP lawmakers are determined to overhaul benefit programs so they can "meet the demographics of the country." He recently said Republicans want to curtail annual cost-of-living benefits for Social Security and other government benefits, as well as raise the age of eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 67 beginning at some point in the future.
"The president seems to think that if all he talks about are taxes, and that's all reporters write about, somehow the rest of us will magically forget that government spending is completely out of control and that he himself has been insisting on balance," McConnell said on the Senate floor.
He highlighted several government programs as examples of what he said was wasteful spending.
"A few weeks ago, Senator (Tom) Coburn issued a study that showed taxpayers are funding Moroccan pottery classes, promoting shampoo and other beauty products for cats and dogs and a video game that allows them to relive prom night," McConnell said. "Get this: Taxpayers also just spent $325,000 on a robotic squirrel named RoboSquirrel."
The two sides had presented rival initial offers in the cliff negotiations.
Obama's plan would raise $1.6 trillion in revenue over 10 years, in part by raising tax rates on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. He has recommended $400 billion in spending cuts over a decade.
He also is seeking extension of the Social Security payroll tax cut due to expire on Jan. 1, a continuation in long-term unemployment benefits and steps to help hard-pressed homeowners and doctors who treat Medicare patients.
The White House summary noted that Obama last year signed legislation to cut more than $1 trillion from government programs over a decade, and was proposing $600 billion in additional savings from benefit programs.
It also noted that the health care law that Obama signed into law showed savings of $100 billion. Much or all of that funding came from Medicare, even though Obama's aides insisted during his successful campaign for re-election that he had not made any cuts in that program.
Boehner's plan, in addition to calling for $800 billion in new revenue, envisions $600 billion in savings over a decade from Medicare, Medicaid and other government health programs as well as $300 billion from other benefit programs and another $300 billion from other domestic programs.
It would trim annual increases in Social Security payments to beneficiaries, and it calls for gradually raising the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67, beginning in a decade.
___
Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn and Donna Cassata contributed to this story.
Officials disclosed that President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner had exchanged at least partial proposals in the past two days.
Details were sparse and evidence of significant progress scarcer still, although officials said the president had offered to reduce his initial demand for $1.6 trillion in higher tax revenue over a decade to $1.4 trillion. There was no indication he was relenting on his insistence - strongly opposed by most Republicans - that tax rates rise at upper incomes.
Boehner sounded unimpressed in remarks on the House floor at midday.
"The longer the White House slow-walks this process, the closer our economy gets to the fiscal cliff," he said, declaring that Obama had yet to identify specific cuts to government benefit programs that the president would support as part of an agreement that also would raise federal tax revenue.
In rebuttal, the White House swiftly detailed numerous proposals Obama has made to cut spending, including recommendations to cull $340 million from Medicare over a decade and an additional $250 billion from other government benefit programs.
The House Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, challenged Boehner to allow a vote on the president's proposal to extend most expiring tax cuts while letting them lapse at higher incomes.
She predicted it would gain "overwhelming approval," even in the GOP-controlled House.
Boehner's office took the step - unusual in secretive talks - of announcing that Republicans "sent the White House a counter-offer that would achieve tax and entitlement reform to solve our looming debt crisis and create more American jobs."
Both sides say they want a deal to prevent damage to the economy, but that stated commitment has been accompanied by a fierce battle to gain the political high ground in negotiations - and the occasional comment that one side or the other would be willing to let the deadline pass without a deal unless it got acceptable terms.
Republicans acknowledge that Obama has an advantage in one respect, citing his re-election last month after a race in which he made higher taxes on the wealthy a centerpiece of his campaign.
At the same time, Republicans hold powerful leverage of their own, the certainty that by spring the president will be forced to ask Congress to raise the government's borrowing authority. It was just such a threat that previously allowed them to extract $1 trillion in spending cuts from the White House and Democratic lawmakers, a situation that Obama has vowed he won't let happen again.
In his noontime remarks on the House floor, Boehner said, "Let's be honest. We're broke. The plan we offered is consistent with the president's call for a balanced approach."
"We're still waiting for the White House" to do the same," added the Ohio Republican.
GOP senators across the Capitol soon echoed his remarks.
"You have to ask the question, Is the president obsessed with raising taxes?" said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, a member of the GOP leadership.
Referring to the president's occasional outside-the-Beltway trips to build public support for his position, Thune said Obama was "doing a victory lap" after the campaign.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said GOP lawmakers are determined to overhaul benefit programs so they can "meet the demographics of the country." He recently said Republicans want to curtail annual cost-of-living benefits for Social Security and other government benefits, as well as raise the age of eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 67 beginning at some point in the future.
"The president seems to think that if all he talks about are taxes, and that's all reporters write about, somehow the rest of us will magically forget that government spending is completely out of control and that he himself has been insisting on balance," McConnell said on the Senate floor.
He highlighted several government programs as examples of what he said was wasteful spending.
"A few weeks ago, Senator (Tom) Coburn issued a study that showed taxpayers are funding Moroccan pottery classes, promoting shampoo and other beauty products for cats and dogs and a video game that allows them to relive prom night," McConnell said. "Get this: Taxpayers also just spent $325,000 on a robotic squirrel named RoboSquirrel."
The two sides had presented rival initial offers in the cliff negotiations.
Obama's plan would raise $1.6 trillion in revenue over 10 years, in part by raising tax rates on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. He has recommended $400 billion in spending cuts over a decade.
He also is seeking extension of the Social Security payroll tax cut due to expire on Jan. 1, a continuation in long-term unemployment benefits and steps to help hard-pressed homeowners and doctors who treat Medicare patients.
The White House summary noted that Obama last year signed legislation to cut more than $1 trillion from government programs over a decade, and was proposing $600 billion in additional savings from benefit programs.
It also noted that the health care law that Obama signed into law showed savings of $100 billion. Much or all of that funding came from Medicare, even though Obama's aides insisted during his successful campaign for re-election that he had not made any cuts in that program.
Boehner's plan, in addition to calling for $800 billion in new revenue, envisions $600 billion in savings over a decade from Medicare, Medicaid and other government health programs as well as $300 billion from other benefit programs and another $300 billion from other domestic programs.
It would trim annual increases in Social Security payments to beneficiaries, and it calls for gradually raising the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67, beginning in a decade.
___
Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn and Donna Cassata contributed to this story.
At least Obama won't have to complain about Bush anymore. As of January, Obama will "inherit" the worst economy in our history. And just whom can he blame it on? Himself. Obama will inherit his own failing economy. suck it up democrats, he's your guy.
Elections have consequences and what you saw is what you'll continue to get! Here we go again...NO serious concern about the deficit.....No serious concern about creating jobs and spurring the economy.....No serious concern about reducing unemployment.....NOTHING BUT the politics of embarrassment! The primary focus of this administration is, and has been, to spend, spend. spend! the handwriting is on the wall....what you can expect is the same thing we are witnessing now in Europe....We haven't learned ONE DAMN THING....pardon my FRENCH! This administration knows absolutely NOTHING ABOUT economics and we will duplicate what's happening in EUROPE, because the DEMS MUST continue to meet the demands of their base and continue to dole out bennies to an expectant welfare society! Taxes will increase for all, not just the 1-2% as promised, jobs will continue to dwindle, the middle class will continue to SHRINK and our economy will continue to TANK! One day we will wake up and ask, "What the hell happened?" BUT don't fret because Uncle O will increase the term of unemployment benefits to 3-4 years, lower the standards for food stamps and welfare and continue to "Take care of US!". YOU can continue to watch "It's a WONDERFUL LIFE" this HOLIDAY SEASON, without even having to clean up OR get off the couch and your check will continue to arrive on time! YOU got what you asked for....now watch as we continue to fall apart and disintegrate as a NATION! THANKS!
Â
Most Liberal Democrats will say that Clinton did a great job with the economy. If that's true, then lets just take Clinton's budget and have Obama adopt it EXACTLY. Same spending numbers, same tax rates. But we know Obama would never go for it. Not near enough big government spending.
@last boyscout ... if not for Bill Gates and all the resultant boons in tech companies I don't think Clinton was anything extraordinary....I recall clearly the decline that started during the last couple of his years in office, and the demo-congress.. no, Clinton was nothing special but a lot better than the brain-dead one we have now, Bush inherited a rapidly worsening economy, a Bin-Laden problem because Clinton kept letting the terrorist go, a still demo controlled congress...
Now we have Grocery prices up at least 10%, Gas to buy groceries up 100%. Letâs raise taxes on the 2% that already pay 35% of the taxes. So we have a bunch of PhD's running the show and this is the result? I guess I need to go back to Elementary School and relearn basic arithmetic, not math, just 1+1=3....my poor grandchildren won't have a chance...my children won't have an easy time of it....and our wonderful way of life has almost become a memory...Oh my, oh my.....
Of course he is. Then he'll try and rush his oh-so-fantastic plan through at the last moment without anyone getting to read what it actually consists of. This is his M.O.
"slow-walking" is better than "slow-talking" and while We're at it, what happened to" listening" ?? The people have spoken and the GOP (as usual) aren't listening. Hell, "Boner" won't even listen to his wife !! If he doesn't even value her opinion, why would he listen to anyone elses??
@Justmark The people spoke and elected Boehner, why should he listen to the people that spoke and elected Obama. That's Obama's concern, not Boehners.
The republiCON party has gone off the sanity cliff ! It's all obamas fault....ya right !
Â
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wanted to prove on Thursday that Democrats donât have the votes to weaken Congressâ authority on the debt limit. Instead they called his bluff, and he ended up filibustering his own bill.
Â
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/mcconnell-filibusters-his-own-bill-to-lift-debt-limit.php
@sargerator  If this is your definition of going over the sanity cliff, then Harry Reid and the DemocRATS went over it last year.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/30/democrats-enforce-filibuster-against-own-debt-bill/
Â
Isn't there another story on here that a dad blames another kid for his kids actions ?? boehner pulling a boner !
This is all just political posturing. And some believe that going over the so-called "fiscal cliff" won't be that bad and can be changed over time. Let's cut all the credits and deductions, simplify the tax code, and have a 10%-15% flat tax on everyone. No exceptions. And while we are at it, eliminate all corporate welfare.
@peckishpete  """" Let's cut all the credits and deductions, simplify the tax code, and have a 10%-15% flat tax on everyone. No exceptions. And while we are at it, eliminate all corporate welfare.""""
how conservative of you :)
Its actually a great idea, google steve forbes flat tax, I think you would agree with alot of it.
I personally like the flat tax or the fair tax. either one is far superior to the dreadful tax system we have now.
 @kramrÂ
Â
The tax system we have now benifits CPAs and tax people.
Â
I doubt anyone other than them actually like the system.
Â
 @peckishpeteÂ
Â
I used to be against a "flat tax" as regressive and not in line with promoting "good" endeavors.
Â
I have come to find out apparently what I feel is good is not what others find is good.
Â
So I am thinking maybe a flat tax rate, or maybe a slightly progressive tax rate with no exceptions for anything is the way to go.
Â
I mean I really like getting credit for interest on my home and donations I make, but I would still buy a home with out the benefit and still make the donations, so why not just dump them?
Â
@Repoman @peckishpete   """So I am thinking maybe a flat tax rate, or maybe a slightly progressive tax rate with no exceptions for anything is the way to go.""""
 actually the flat tax, at least Steve Forbes version of it is slight progressive. For example a family of four does NOT start paying federal tax until the ~$35k a year and then starts paying. so a family of 4 making $70k a year would have a effective tax rate of half of what the flat tax rate is  and so on.  Â
"...The plan we offered is consistent with the president's call for a balanced approach..."
No it's not. It leans heavily on the lowest incomes and pretty solely on tax reforms that will affect lower income earners more than higher and not touch the highest income earners at all.
Â
A "balanced" approach would hurt evenly. Should there be benefits reforms? Yes. Should there be tax reforms? Yes. But we should not leave that as it. With an imbalance of wealth due explicitly to the current taxing scheme there is no real "balance" of the budget that cannot include increases on those who have the most wealth.
Â
Thus those who have the most can help the most and we should ask that of them. THAT would be balance.
Â
Enough with the grandstanding.