Obama, Boehner meet to discuss 'fiscal cliff'

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner met Sunday at the White House to discuss the ongoing negotiations over the impending "fiscal cliff," the first meeting between just the two leaders since Election Day.
Spokesmen for both Obama and Boehner said they agreed to not release details of the conversation, but emphasized that the lines of communication remain open.
The meeting comes as the White House and Congress try to break an impasse over finding a way to stop a combination of automatic tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to kick in at the beginning of next year.
Obama met in November with Boehner, as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The president spoke by telephone with Reid and in person with Pelosi on Friday.
Obama has been pushing higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans as one way to reduce the deficit - a position Boehner and other House Republicans have been steadfastly against. Republicans are demanding steeper cuts in costly government entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.
One GOP senator said Sunday that Senate Republicans would probably agree to higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans if it meant getting a chance to overhaul entitlement programs.
The comments by Bob Corker of Tennessee - a fiscal conservative who has been gaining stature in the Senate as a pragmatic deal broker - puts new pressure on Boehner and other Republican leaders to rethink their long-held assertion that even the very rich shouldn't see their rates go up next year. GOP leaders have argued that the revenue gained by hiking the top two tax rates would be trivial to the deficit, and that any tax hike hurts job creation.
But Corker said insisting on that red line - especially since Obama won re-election after campaigning on raising tax rates on the wealthy - might not be wise.
"There is a growing group of folks looking at this and realizing that we don't have a lot of cards as it relates to the tax issue before year end," Corker told "Fox News Sunday."
If Republicans agree to Obama's plan to increase rates on the top 2 percent of Americans, Corker added, "the focus then shifts to entitlements and maybe it puts us in a place where we actually can do something that really saves the nation."
Besides getting tax hikes through the Republican-dominated House, Corker's proposal faces another hurdle: Democrats haven't been receptive to GOP proposals on the entitlement programs. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on Sunday was skeptical about proposals to increase the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67. He said he doesn't see Congress addressing the complicated issue of Medicare overhaul in the three weeks remaining before the end of the year.
"I just don't think we can do it in a matter of days here before the end of the year," Durbin said. "We need to address that in a thoughtful way through the committee structure after the first of the year."
And hard-line fiscal conservatives in the House are holding fast to their position.
"No Republican wants to vote for a rate tax increase," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, chairman of the House Republican Conference.
Added Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.: "I'm not sure there is support for the rate hikes. There is support for revenue by cleaning up the code."
Still, at least one House Republican has said there is another way. Rep. Tom Cole, of Oklahoma, has said Obama and Boehner should agree not to raise tax rates on the majority of Americans and negotiate the rates for top earners later. Cole said Sunday that most House Republicans would vote for that approach because it doesn't include a rate hike.
"You know, it's not waving a white flag to recognize political reality," Cole said.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., already has said he could support higher tax rates on upper incomes as part of a comprehensive plan to cut the federal deficit.
When asked Sunday what it would take to sign on to a tax rate increase, Coburn echoed Corker's comments by responding, "Significant entitlement reform." He quickly added, however, that he has estimated that such a tax rate increase would only affect about 7 percent of the deficit.
"Will I accept a tax increase as a part of a deal to actually solve our problems? Yes," Coburn said. "But the president's negotiating with the wrong people. He needs to be negotiating with our bondholders in China, because if we don't put a credible plan on the discussion, ultimately, we all lose."
Obama's plan would raise $1.6 trillion in revenue over 10 years, partly by letting decade-old tax cuts on the country's highest earners expire at the end of the year. He would continue those Bush-era tax cuts for everyone except individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples making above $250,000. The highest rates on top-paid Americans would rise from 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6 percent.
Boehner has offered $800 billion in new revenues to be raised by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks on upper-income people. The Republican plan would cut spending by $1.4 trillion, including by trimming annual increases in Social Security payments and raising the eligibility age for Medicare.
Hensarling and Coburn spoke on ABC's "This Week." Blackburn and Cole spoke on CNN's "State of the Union." Durbin spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Spokesmen for both Obama and Boehner said they agreed to not release details of the conversation, but emphasized that the lines of communication remain open.
The meeting comes as the White House and Congress try to break an impasse over finding a way to stop a combination of automatic tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to kick in at the beginning of next year.
Obama met in November with Boehner, as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The president spoke by telephone with Reid and in person with Pelosi on Friday.
Obama has been pushing higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans as one way to reduce the deficit - a position Boehner and other House Republicans have been steadfastly against. Republicans are demanding steeper cuts in costly government entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.
One GOP senator said Sunday that Senate Republicans would probably agree to higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans if it meant getting a chance to overhaul entitlement programs.
The comments by Bob Corker of Tennessee - a fiscal conservative who has been gaining stature in the Senate as a pragmatic deal broker - puts new pressure on Boehner and other Republican leaders to rethink their long-held assertion that even the very rich shouldn't see their rates go up next year. GOP leaders have argued that the revenue gained by hiking the top two tax rates would be trivial to the deficit, and that any tax hike hurts job creation.
But Corker said insisting on that red line - especially since Obama won re-election after campaigning on raising tax rates on the wealthy - might not be wise.
"There is a growing group of folks looking at this and realizing that we don't have a lot of cards as it relates to the tax issue before year end," Corker told "Fox News Sunday."
If Republicans agree to Obama's plan to increase rates on the top 2 percent of Americans, Corker added, "the focus then shifts to entitlements and maybe it puts us in a place where we actually can do something that really saves the nation."
Besides getting tax hikes through the Republican-dominated House, Corker's proposal faces another hurdle: Democrats haven't been receptive to GOP proposals on the entitlement programs. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on Sunday was skeptical about proposals to increase the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67. He said he doesn't see Congress addressing the complicated issue of Medicare overhaul in the three weeks remaining before the end of the year.
"I just don't think we can do it in a matter of days here before the end of the year," Durbin said. "We need to address that in a thoughtful way through the committee structure after the first of the year."
And hard-line fiscal conservatives in the House are holding fast to their position.
"No Republican wants to vote for a rate tax increase," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, chairman of the House Republican Conference.
Added Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.: "I'm not sure there is support for the rate hikes. There is support for revenue by cleaning up the code."
Still, at least one House Republican has said there is another way. Rep. Tom Cole, of Oklahoma, has said Obama and Boehner should agree not to raise tax rates on the majority of Americans and negotiate the rates for top earners later. Cole said Sunday that most House Republicans would vote for that approach because it doesn't include a rate hike.
"You know, it's not waving a white flag to recognize political reality," Cole said.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., already has said he could support higher tax rates on upper incomes as part of a comprehensive plan to cut the federal deficit.
When asked Sunday what it would take to sign on to a tax rate increase, Coburn echoed Corker's comments by responding, "Significant entitlement reform." He quickly added, however, that he has estimated that such a tax rate increase would only affect about 7 percent of the deficit.
"Will I accept a tax increase as a part of a deal to actually solve our problems? Yes," Coburn said. "But the president's negotiating with the wrong people. He needs to be negotiating with our bondholders in China, because if we don't put a credible plan on the discussion, ultimately, we all lose."
Obama's plan would raise $1.6 trillion in revenue over 10 years, partly by letting decade-old tax cuts on the country's highest earners expire at the end of the year. He would continue those Bush-era tax cuts for everyone except individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples making above $250,000. The highest rates on top-paid Americans would rise from 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6 percent.
Boehner has offered $800 billion in new revenues to be raised by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks on upper-income people. The Republican plan would cut spending by $1.4 trillion, including by trimming annual increases in Social Security payments and raising the eligibility age for Medicare.
Hensarling and Coburn spoke on ABC's "This Week." Blackburn and Cole spoke on CNN's "State of the Union." Durbin spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press."
The tax rates of the 90's produced a trillion dollar surplus when Clinton left office. Bush squandered it in 3 short years. The with the prescription drug act and no way to pay for it or the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich the GOP has bankrupted the country. Then they blame Obama for not fixing it fast enough. They talk about a "real recovery". Recovery from what? an earthquake, a hurricane, a tsunami? No, they are talking about a recovery from the last GOP administration.
Just let it happen and get it over with.
Â
No matter what our worthless politicians do we will go over a financial cliff. California is hemorrhaging money even after the big tax increases that were voted in and they may be the ones that start the whole financial collapse. They came in almost 1 billion short the month after the big tax increase. I guess they need to raise taxes again.
Can't tell in the photo if Boner just farted or is about to cry.......
@kramr  It's the disgust of having the BHO touch him.
Boehner, do your damn job and tax your fellow rich-scum. The middle class and the poor have had enough.
Â
Maybe open revolt is what's needed, like the French Revolution. Johnny looks like the kind who'd tell us "to eat cake."
@Rick Anderson  """"The middle class and the poor have had enough.""""""
class envy is just sad.
currently the top 1% of wage earners pay 37% of all personal income taxes paid. that is ALREADY HIGHER percentage than the wealthy pay in most other countries like france, sweden, germany, etc.
Sticking it to the rich any more is nothing more than wealth redistrubution fueled by class envy.
Â
If the tax rates are to go up....... they should go up FOR EVERYONE !!!!!!
@kramr and by taking even more money out of the hands of the two classes that, on average, spend everything they earn, all you do is invite job cuts due to lowered demand for goods and a completely new recession. By taxing the wealthy at the 39% that they payed during the Clinton years, all you do is increase revenue.
@Ramsesthegreat  Thanks for bringing up the clinton years. I didn't hear the middle class up in arms about paying the clinton rates... so why not  take EVERYONE back to the clinton rates?????? it the ONLY FAIR thing to do since the wealthy are ALREADY paying a higher percentage of taxes than in countries like France, Sweden, Germany, etc.
There is one thing we can be certain of: no matter who screws things up, it will only be messed up for a maximum of 8 years, then the other side gets to play and screw things up! I can't wait!
 @jpkÂ
We only get 4 more years of this screwup, we had aldreayd gotten 4 from him.
Â
THEN we get to vote in another person who can screw up for us.
As long as the Chicago Democrat Obama has it his way, everything will be OK! He never heard of what a compromise actually is!
Nice picture of tweedle dee and tweedle dumb......
Â
I'm no pete rose but I'd bet the farm that nothing of any significance will happen. .... B HO has absolutely no desire to cut spending and Boner is to big of a wussy as well as a lousy negotiator for anything positive to happen.
the american people are so screwed......
 @kramr Sadly, you're probably right.
obozo has much more important things to do - like going on vacation for 17 days. It's not like he has done anything to earn one.
 @theobserver At the cost of over $4 million to the tax payer.
@scoreboard what was the total tax payer cost of Bush's 3 years of vacation during his 8 years in office? I only ask since you seem so concerned about the cost of presidential vacations.
@Ramsesthegreat You must have forgot that even mentioning Bush is not allowed.
@theobserver so do you believe that Bush did anything during his 8 years in office to earn the nearly 3 years worth of vacation he took while in office?
Do not feed them or let them leave the room until the promise to cooperate which each others.
The last 13 recessions were caused by a republican president and a democrat had to clean up the mess
 @USCitizen And what has Obama done to fix it? Increased the debt by $6 trillion and record unemployment. Sure unemployment went down this month but how much of that decrease was due to just seasonal labor? Quite a bit I'm sure. Wait until January's numbers come out and I'll bet unemployment will have increased and if not January then in February.
 @USCitizen Not entirely true. There were a few democratic presidents involved in the last 13 recessions as well, that were cleaned up by Republicans
Great Depression - FDR, democrat.
Recession of 1937-1938 - FDR, democrat.
Recession of 1945 - Truman, democrat
Recession of 1949 - Truman, democrat
Â
 @theobserver  @USCitizen Just curious.. Which Republican cleaned up the Great Depression? It was three years old by the time FDR took the White House from Herbert Hoover.Â
Â
The 1937-38 recession happened because FDR listened to conservatives and balanced the budget too early.
Â
1945 happened to mark the end of WWII - with discharged soldiers and drastically reduced federal spending, a recession was unavoidable. In fact, many people thought the Depression would kick in again. Instead the country launched upon its largest economic expansion ever (with a few minor recessions but nothing resembling 1929 or 2008).Â
Here's something you might want to read.  http://myesoteric.hubpages.com/hub/A-Short-History-of-Significant-American-Recessions-and-Depressions-and-their-Causes
Â
Â
http://nebulium.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/do-republicans-cause-economic-depressions/
Â
The first 2 authors lay blame to each; D's and R's.
Â
http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/a/recession_histo.htm
  (this one doesn't provide D's and R's directly but give you some things to chase.)
Â
Bottom line:  It appears that there's equal opprotunity:  The score is 6 democrates and 7 republicans.   Happy Reading.
Obama's class warfare is disgusting. His endless wail of "higher taxes" is proof of the failure of liberalism. You can not tax your way to prosperity. Obama is ruining the American economy. If you voted for Obama, you voted for this economy.
@last boyscout a lot of indicators suggest the economy is improving. How is that going to work on right wing talk radio?
@last boyscout yet the last time taxes were this low, the Great Depression happened shortly afterwards. Yet the country prospered when the top marginal tax rate was above 70% for decades. Seems your logic of lower taxes=better for the country is flawed according to history.
 @Ramsesthegreat  @last Imagine this experiment. Split any state in two, equally divided among all assets. Then double all taxes on one side and cut the taxes by 50% on the other. Since this is impossible, I'll have Romney run the lower tax side, and you could choose who ran the higher tax side. Answer honestly, which side would you live on, and which side would show economic gain after one year? I'm not trying to be a smart azz, it's an honest question.Â
@last boyscout Can we pick Gary Johnson to run the other state?
Â
Per capital total tax burden from state to state varies enough to see close to a 100% difference from highest to lowest, but there doesn't seem to be a link between that and the each states economy. Some of the highest taxers have a thriving economy as do some of the lowest taxers.
@Ramsesthegreat@last
During the first two years of Mr. Obamaâs presidency, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, Republicans offered scorched-earth opposition to anything and everything he proposed. Among other things, they engaged in an unprecedented number of filibusters, turning the Senate â for the first time â into a chamber in which nothing can pass without 60 votes.
And, when Republicans took control of the House, they became even more extreme. The 2011 debt ceiling standoff was a first in American history: An opposition party declared itself willing to undermine the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, with incalculable economic effects, unless it got its way. And the looming fight over the âfiscal cliffâ is more of the same. Once again, the G.O.P. is threatening to inflict large damage on the economy unless Mr. Obama gives it something â an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy â that it lacks the votes to pass through normal constitutional processes.
Raising the taxes on the ultra rich won't make one bit of difference. Spending needs to be cut. I'm not saying on Medicare or Social Security of Military but there has to be other things to be cut. Perhaps cutting the politicians salaries for starters. How about repealing Obamacare?Â
Â
Don't say end the wars because that won't make that much difference either as all that money was borrowed anyway.
 @scoreboard Spending cuts will never happen under this administration. He is addicted to war and bombing people via drones. Everything the this administration does is window dressing.Â
@Jamie @scoreboard "addicted to war". ...like the one he withdrew from in Iraq. I guess he's one of those Bush/Cheney/Rove Blood-For-Oil neocons too. Typically, people who are addicted to war fight or wage them. All he's doing is spying on people and bombing some of them. That's not war, that's an institutionalized drive-by.
 @Jamie @Playanekes That's not my point. Ending the war won't solve the budget issues because all the money used from the way is borrowed. I'm not saying we shouldn't end it, just that it won't make that big of a difference.
Â
 @Jamie Yes I know, but one could only hope.......
@scoreboard end subsidies to profitable companies. Close the majority of overseas military bases app which would allow for the military budget to be slashed to a fraction of what it is and still not affect preparedness one bit. Those are where the cuts should start.