Obama: Fiscal cliff deal close, not done as deadline looms

WASHINGTON (AP) - Agonizingly close to a New Year's Eve compromise, the White House and congressional Republicans agreed Monday to block across-the-board tax increases set for midnight, but held up a final deal as they haggled away the final hours of 2012 in a dispute over spending cuts.
"It appears that an agreement to prevent this New Year's tax hike is within sight," President Barack Obama said in an early-afternoon status report on negotiations. "But it's not done," he added of legislation that redeems his campaign pledge to raise taxes on the wealthy while sparing the middle class.
Even by the dysfunctional standards of government-by-gridlock, the activity at both ends of historic Pennsylvania Avenue was remarkable as the White House and Congress struggled over legislation to prevent a "fiscal cliff" of tax increases and spending cuts.
As darkness fell on the last day of the year, Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and their aides were at work in the White House, and lights burned in the House and Senate. Democrats complained that Obama had given away too much in agreeing to limit tax increases to incomes over $450,000, far above the $250,000 level he campaigned on. Yet some Republicans recoiled at the prospect of raising taxes at all.
A late dispute over the estate tax produced allegations of bad faith from all sides - but no swift compromise.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell - shepherding final talks with Biden - agreed with Obama that an overall deal was near. In remarks on the Senate floor, he suggested Congress move quickly to pass tax legislation and "continue to work on finding smarter ways to cut spending" next year.
The White House and Democrats initially declined the offer, preferring to prevent the cuts from kicking in at the Pentagon and domestic agencies alike. Officials said they might yet reconsider, although there was also talk of a short-term delay in the reductions.
While the deadline to prevent tax increases and spending cuts was technically midnight, passage of legislation by the time a new Congress takes office at noon on Jan. 3, 2013 - the likely timetable - would eliminate or minimize any inconvenience for taxpayers.
For now, more than the embarrassment of a gridlocked Congress working through New Year's Eve in the Capitol was at stake.
Economists in and out of government have warned that a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts could trigger a new recession, and the White House and Congress have spent the seven seeks since the Nov. 6 elections struggling for a compromise to protect the economy.
Even now, with time running out, partisan agendas were evident.
Obama used his appearance to chastise Congress, and to lay down a marker for the next round of negotiations early in 2013 when Republicans intend to seek spending cuts in exchange for letting the Treasury to borrow above the current debt limit of $16.4 trillion.
"Now, if Republicans think that I will finish the job of deficit reduction through spending cuts alone - and you hear that sometimes coming from them ... then they've got another think coming. ... That's not how it's going to work at least as long as I'm president," he said.
"And I'm going to be president for the next four years, I think," he added.
Officials in both parties said agreement had been reached to prevent tax increases on most Americans, while letting rates rise on individual income over $400,000 and household earnings over $450,000 to a maximum of 39.6 percent from the current 35 percent. That marked a victory for Obama, who campaigned successfully for re-election on a platform of requiring the wealthy to pay more.
Officials said any agreement would also raise taxes on the value of estates exceeding $5 million to 40 percent, but a late dispute emerged on that point as well as on spending cuts. Democrats accused Republicans of making a 11th-hour demand to have the $5 million threshold rise each year to take inflation into account. GOP officials said the White House had agreed to the proposal on Sunday night, a claim administration officials disputed.
Any compromise was also expected to extend expiring jobless benefits for 2 million unemployed, prevent a 27 percent cut in fees for doctors who treat Medicare patients and likely avoid a near-doubling of milk prices.
Much or all of the revenue to be raised through higher taxes on the wealthy would help hold down the amount paid to the Internal Revenue Service by the middle class.
In addition to preventing higher rates for most, any agreement would retain existing breaks for families with children, for low-earning taxpayers and for those with a child in college.
In addition, the two sides agreed to prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax from expanding to affect an estimated 28 million households for the first time in 2013, with an average increase of more than $3,000. The law was originally designed to make sure millionaires did not escape taxes, but inflation has gradually exposed more and more households with lower earnings to its impact.
To help businesses, the two sides also agreed to extend an existing research and development tax credit as well as other breaks designed to boost renewable energy production. Details on those provisions were sketchy.
Obama's remarks irritated some Republicans.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona they would "clearly antagonize members of the House."
There was no response from Speaker John Boehner, who has been content to remain in the background while McConnell did the negotiating.
Some Democratic officials said that with his comments, Obama was hoping to ease the concerns of liberals in his own party who feared he had given away too much in the current round of talks over taxes.
Obama campaigned on a call for higher tax rates on income over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples, far lower than the $400,000 and $450,000 that Biden and McConnell have set.
Similarly, the pending agreement on the estate tax would allow more large estates to escape taxation than many Democrats prefer.
By late afternoon, the two sides remained separated by a stubborn dispute over spending cuts scheduled to take effect on the Pentagon and domestic programs alike.
Officials familiar with the talks said the White House has been seeking agreement to stop the cuts from taking effect, either for a period of months or a year, and wanted to count higher taxes created elsewhere in the legislation to offset the cost.
Republicans have said they are willing to delay the across-the-board cuts, but only if Obama and Democrats agree to targeted savings from government programs to take their place.
"It appears that an agreement to prevent this New Year's tax hike is within sight," President Barack Obama said in an early-afternoon status report on negotiations. "But it's not done," he added of legislation that redeems his campaign pledge to raise taxes on the wealthy while sparing the middle class.
Even by the dysfunctional standards of government-by-gridlock, the activity at both ends of historic Pennsylvania Avenue was remarkable as the White House and Congress struggled over legislation to prevent a "fiscal cliff" of tax increases and spending cuts.
As darkness fell on the last day of the year, Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and their aides were at work in the White House, and lights burned in the House and Senate. Democrats complained that Obama had given away too much in agreeing to limit tax increases to incomes over $450,000, far above the $250,000 level he campaigned on. Yet some Republicans recoiled at the prospect of raising taxes at all.
A late dispute over the estate tax produced allegations of bad faith from all sides - but no swift compromise.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell - shepherding final talks with Biden - agreed with Obama that an overall deal was near. In remarks on the Senate floor, he suggested Congress move quickly to pass tax legislation and "continue to work on finding smarter ways to cut spending" next year.
The White House and Democrats initially declined the offer, preferring to prevent the cuts from kicking in at the Pentagon and domestic agencies alike. Officials said they might yet reconsider, although there was also talk of a short-term delay in the reductions.
While the deadline to prevent tax increases and spending cuts was technically midnight, passage of legislation by the time a new Congress takes office at noon on Jan. 3, 2013 - the likely timetable - would eliminate or minimize any inconvenience for taxpayers.
For now, more than the embarrassment of a gridlocked Congress working through New Year's Eve in the Capitol was at stake.
Economists in and out of government have warned that a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts could trigger a new recession, and the White House and Congress have spent the seven seeks since the Nov. 6 elections struggling for a compromise to protect the economy.
Even now, with time running out, partisan agendas were evident.
Obama used his appearance to chastise Congress, and to lay down a marker for the next round of negotiations early in 2013 when Republicans intend to seek spending cuts in exchange for letting the Treasury to borrow above the current debt limit of $16.4 trillion.
"Now, if Republicans think that I will finish the job of deficit reduction through spending cuts alone - and you hear that sometimes coming from them ... then they've got another think coming. ... That's not how it's going to work at least as long as I'm president," he said.
"And I'm going to be president for the next four years, I think," he added.
Officials in both parties said agreement had been reached to prevent tax increases on most Americans, while letting rates rise on individual income over $400,000 and household earnings over $450,000 to a maximum of 39.6 percent from the current 35 percent. That marked a victory for Obama, who campaigned successfully for re-election on a platform of requiring the wealthy to pay more.
Officials said any agreement would also raise taxes on the value of estates exceeding $5 million to 40 percent, but a late dispute emerged on that point as well as on spending cuts. Democrats accused Republicans of making a 11th-hour demand to have the $5 million threshold rise each year to take inflation into account. GOP officials said the White House had agreed to the proposal on Sunday night, a claim administration officials disputed.
Any compromise was also expected to extend expiring jobless benefits for 2 million unemployed, prevent a 27 percent cut in fees for doctors who treat Medicare patients and likely avoid a near-doubling of milk prices.
Much or all of the revenue to be raised through higher taxes on the wealthy would help hold down the amount paid to the Internal Revenue Service by the middle class.
In addition to preventing higher rates for most, any agreement would retain existing breaks for families with children, for low-earning taxpayers and for those with a child in college.
In addition, the two sides agreed to prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax from expanding to affect an estimated 28 million households for the first time in 2013, with an average increase of more than $3,000. The law was originally designed to make sure millionaires did not escape taxes, but inflation has gradually exposed more and more households with lower earnings to its impact.
To help businesses, the two sides also agreed to extend an existing research and development tax credit as well as other breaks designed to boost renewable energy production. Details on those provisions were sketchy.
Obama's remarks irritated some Republicans.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona they would "clearly antagonize members of the House."
There was no response from Speaker John Boehner, who has been content to remain in the background while McConnell did the negotiating.
Some Democratic officials said that with his comments, Obama was hoping to ease the concerns of liberals in his own party who feared he had given away too much in the current round of talks over taxes.
Obama campaigned on a call for higher tax rates on income over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples, far lower than the $400,000 and $450,000 that Biden and McConnell have set.
Similarly, the pending agreement on the estate tax would allow more large estates to escape taxation than many Democrats prefer.
By late afternoon, the two sides remained separated by a stubborn dispute over spending cuts scheduled to take effect on the Pentagon and domestic programs alike.
Officials familiar with the talks said the White House has been seeking agreement to stop the cuts from taking effect, either for a period of months or a year, and wanted to count higher taxes created elsewhere in the legislation to offset the cost.
Republicans have said they are willing to delay the across-the-board cuts, but only if Obama and Democrats agree to targeted savings from government programs to take their place.
You can't believe a word he says. It is tiresome to watch him point his finger as though you were a stupid child that doesn't listen to what he is told to do. Just looking at him is revolting.
Everyone is reporting that a deal has been reached. NO CLIFF DIVE FOLKS!
Yep. Let's see what comes of this.
You are elected officials. You were elected for a job. If you fail to get that job done, why should we allow you to keep it?
Â
You work for us, we do not work for you. Get the job done now or get out!
Â
Guess what? The Democrats got what they wanted! Dems want cuts to the defense? Tomorrow there will be 800,0000 pink slips going out from the Pentagon. Dems want more revenue? Tomorrow there will be more cash to spend due to the Bush tax cuts expiring for all. YES! Way to go Obama and the Dems!!  Happy New Year! Cheers to Obama and the start of his 5th year!!!
Congrats to all whom voted incumbent. Â You get what you deserve. Â When it comes around again... will you lemmings search the same path?
Â
Fire all of them!! Â I've seen 3rd graders compromise in a better fashion. Â Unbelievably pathetic! Â < considering this is my last post of the year.
@d_2, perhaps you've heard my battle cry for the last three years; "Unseat all incumbents!". I've used it several times to no avail in King County. Stupid pacifists.
I wish KOMO would do what I have seen other news stations and papers do and make their updates as separate entries with the specification, "Update" and the time of the update listed before the update begins. This article has been updated several times today. I have already read the article, I do not want to have to re-read the whole thing simply to find the updated information which they frequently throw into the middle of the article.Â
How about this; pull our troops home. They're stuck in a quagmire. Pull them out for a while, let that snake come out and stick it's head up again, then we go back. Since we pulled out of Iraq that's what has been happening, it'll be the same in Afghanistan. Save some lives and a buttload of $. Stop giving money to countries that hate us. Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Iraq, and most definitely Pakistan, (what a bunch of liars). Hey, tell them like it is; "We're broke. We can't give you what we don't have". Next, review the 'grants' given to 'studies' and decide what is really needed. Do we really need to know how fast ketchup flows? Hey, maybe I'm a dolt, but I think this makes some sense. Stab me of you like, I've got a thick skin.Â
 @SargeMcC The problem is that even if we totally zeroed out entirely the DoD budget, including vetrans stuff, AND ALL foreign aid, we'd still be running a more than $300 billion deficit. It's not the Dod budget. It's not foreign aid. It's not just this or just that. It's *everything*. Just. Too. Much.
I know, but it's a starting point and would be good for the American morale.
 @SargeMcC It's all about political interests. What we do internationally comes down to that and only that. We want our presence where we want it for reasons that don't help America, and the powers that be could give two ***ts about what is actually good for this nation.Â
@jowsuf, Hi, and thanks. I don't always agree with you, but I respect your comments. Thank you for respecting mine. Consider what I've posted a litlle more and tell me what you think.
Thus my battle cry; "Unseat all incumbents!".
 @SargeMcC I have to admit that I don't understand our military strategies enough to make that comment, but I have a hard time believing our military placements couldn't be evaluated and adjusted to save resources without compromising our goals and security.Â
Â
You do have a lot of good ideas. There's grants for some pretty wild things that we don't need to be throwing money at. The bottom line is, as everyone knows by now, they don't want to go through budgets to decide what to cut. They just aren't interested. Congressmen don't even read the legislation they vote on. It doesn't sound like they care at all.
What an underwhelming surprise........
I'm going to start a new party whose only platform is a balanced budget amendment and a term limits amendment. Time to end the shenanigans.
@marvin, what are we going to call it? Can we set limits on how long a Supreme Court Justice can sit? Can we make it easier to get rid of a justice that's a certified idiot?
 @SargeMcC Sarge, I'm for term limits on every government job that isn't a regular job like you and I have. And after looking at the post office and other government offices, I might be convinced that those need it too.Â
 @marvin Close... try here:  http://www.lp.org
I've looked at the Libertarian Party also, and it has probably morphed into what some like to label the 'Tea Party', and given time, it will become a viable option. The problem is that too many Americans don't want to identify with a party that is conservatively anti-government and actively pro-capitalistic. Free enterprise scares those who have no personal drive, but want to suck off the government teat.
 @d_2 That is probably the closest current party to what I want. But they are still very diverse in their platform. I wouldn't try to cover social issues at all.
We cannot tax our way into prosperity.
We're gonna wait 'til the midnight hour
That's when the economy comes tumbling down
We're gonna wait 'til the midnight hour
To sail over the cliff and hit the ground.
Ok boys and girls, please keep your arms and legs inside the car until the ride is complete. Souveneir pictures will be available for purchase from the gift shop. Thanks again, and please enjoy the ride.
This is a no brainer... Quit spending money. Duh!
 @Tolly371 The problem is that it's a no-brainer for the addict to quit the the junk he's on. But he's addicted. DC is like a drunk teenager with someone else's credit card, and they either don't care about the consequences, or they don't understand them, and they figure they have always been able to kick the can down the road before, so they always will be able to.... until they can't, and it'll be an ugly awakening when the bill collectors can't be avoided any more.
 I will be going to the fireworks stand after dinner. At 9;00 P.M. I will set them off, unless we get sold out ! I will be celebrating going over the cliff ! Now Obama voters will have tp pay for what they voted for !Â
 @Maynard G Krebbs And unfortunately, so do the rest of the voters.
A little better than a month ago we had the chance to shake up the statis quo. We now have the same people and expect a different end result? Nuff said.
Why is it that raising taxes is the answer to everything that liberals propose?
Why is it that cutting entitlements is never an option?
Why is it that cutting the military is always 1st on the chopping block?
Â
Why is it that those that work hard, every day, are appointed to pay for those that don't?
Â
If my memory serves me correctly, we abolished slavery about 150 years ago. Yet the middle class is now slave to the government and its minions that they've created that depend on the workers.
Â
Seems our nation has Alzheimer's disease and the government supports it.
Â
Â
Â
Â
@bobalouie  We're sending 20 F-16's to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood to the tune of a billion dollars. That's over $8 for each tax payer that we send over to anti-US Islamists in Egypt.We are spending up to $10 billion in Afghanistan for Security upgrades, courtesy of each taxpayer's $80 of taxes.The US Defense Budget has spent $5,600 per taxpayer this year alone. And do we feel safer?There was one stat out that compares our debt interest payments to China being almost the same figure as the entire Chinese Military Budget --- so we are, in a way, bankrolling China's Military.So at what point is Defense Spending not on the cutting block?And by the way, I agree, we should not be setting up a pyramid scheme for our children to falsely buy into (Social Programs).
I can't argue anything you said. The bottom line is who's in charge of the cuts, and where will they be made? Will they be made to those that wish us destroyed? No. Will they be made to reduce our freedom? Absolutely.
Â
Â
This comment has been deleted
@pbs7mm  You're not really a true "conservative" until you start to realize both Democrats and Republicans have been playing the same tune for decades now.Indefinite Detention without Warrants, 40%+ of the entire world's Military Budget, Some of the Highest Tax Rates in the world, it's a lot like an empire over here, with very little to stop "progress" from ripping this nation's foundations out from under it.Republicans have a large dirty hand to blame for this.
 @pbs7mm You clearly don't understand what Marxism is.
Did anyone actually listen to this speech? He kicked the GOP in the teeth even though a potential deal of ONLY tax hikes was done. If I was a GOP member, I wouldn't come to a vote either. On another note, the Dems should be happy about this cliff deal because 800,000 people in the Defense dept. will be cut by the Pentagon. They'll get oodles of revenue with all of us paying more in taxes as well. They can continue to spend us into oblivion!  OH HAPPY DAY!! This is the start of his 5th year of divide and conquers so now Obama owns all of it.
Vote of no confidence on all these clowns. The whole thing. From top to bottom, party to party. These people don't care about the citizens of this nation. It's crystal clear. Time to clean house.
 @jowsuf You had that chance in November. instead people voted for the same people expecting a different result. just insane .
 @Maynard G Krebbs Cleaning house doesn't mean a new Republican or a better Democrat. It means ousting both of these self-concerned party candidates. Both parties are ruining America. I didn't vote for either, but people can't wrap their heads around a 3rd party option. Moving away from the comfortable norm is too scary for the average idiot American. I'll say it a million times- the answer isn't in EITHER party.
@jowsuf The time to clean house just passed with the elections in November.
Ever get the obvious, Obama the supa-pimp and the rest of the elected escorts are playing us like fools?
Â
Well if not, figure it out and welcome to the bull manure party of hot gassed jack wagons.
Â
And Marxism. Tax you to death, until all you have is dependency. They are no better than drug pushers.
 @pbs7mm Raising taxes is not Marxism. Read a book.
This comment has been deleted
@SouthofSeattle  And those who are disagreed with et labeled "extreme" for having a different view. Is that not very much different than exaggeration? But of course opposing views are always extreme..
 @jowsuf  @pbs7mm Those who don't really understand lean towards exaggeration.
 @pbs7mm Still does not apply. MANY forms of governments raise taxes. Gross exaggeration.
All of them should be charged with treason.
Â
Â
Whenever the subject of taxes comes up so does food stamps, medical, welfare, etc... If you're working, paying taxes, and feel the need to dis those who aren't here is an idea. Work less. How about a limit on the number of hours an individual may work to gather wealth, pay the bills, etc.... Maybe no more than 30 hours per week. The unemployed could use those work hours that are available. Treat employment like a finite resource, ration it. Just the thought of giving up income so that others can get off of food stamps should shut a lot a..h.... up. Wouldn't hurt to outlaw non-citizen employment, since it is a finite resource. In the end it's just a fight to see who can get the most off of the tree.
 @uscit16791949 First, lets see those people on food stamps, unenjoyment, and welfare go take a job that they feel is "beneath them" (McDonalds, Walmart, staffing agency, Home Depot. etc..) Than, if they are still not making ends meet, extend their benefits. Do you have any idea how easy it is to scam unemployment and welfare? I see it all the time, so talk to those people before you go after those who are working 40-60 hours a week and paying for deadbeats to sit at home and watch t.v.Â
You have no idea how every person tries. Some try hard while others only want to take. My husband works for Boeing. After 9/11 he was laid off for 44 months. He applied for every job that would take an application whether it paid as much as unemployment or not. He trid all the fast food places finally got seasonal job at Wal-Mart. He got laid off from there. After 2 years we lost unemployment and had no choice but to go to the state for help. We had 4 young kids. I cried the whole time we met with the lady. One of the things with getting TANF is you must be in a program called work first. They help with resumes, job searches, interviewing skills and you must activly seek work 5 days per week. You have to prove it to them. Wow we got $647.00 per month in cash and $600.00 in food benefits. I had worked for 25 years and never thought I would be on Welfare. Why did my husband not get jobs. The reason given was since he worked at Boeing he would not be happy making minimum wage. When you have nothing minimum wage is a god send. Clinton changed the rules for welfare so these changes have been in effect for a long time.
 @facher83 Dude, how much is your rent, or house payment? Probably more than 647.Â
Â
 Taxpro- I got laid off for about 30 months in there, I got a job that paid about half what I made before, worked there for about a year and a half, loved the work and the people but had to go back to Boeing as a matter of simple economics.
Â
 My supervisor at that interim job lost three people to Boeing in a month, and swore he would never hire another Boeing layoff. Can't say I blame him, but it creates a problem for laid off hard working people like your husband there. I hope times are better for you.Â
@taxpro  You worked for 25 years? That puts you at least 25 years of work by 2001, which at 20 years of age that puts you at 45 when you were laid off, and now right around 55 years old.After saving money for 25 years was $1,247/mo not enough? I'm wondering what kind of budget you were on...
@taxpro It's not always just about minimum wage. When you have a highly skilled worker and put them to work at minimum wage jobs they don't fare real well. They may do the job, but they won't like it and most of the time it really shows. I would much rather see people such as yourselves get help (a hand up) than see these people who don't even try get a hand out. At least you try to help yourself and you didn't intend to stay down any longer than necessary.
 @uscit16791949 I was offered a job not too long ago but they only wanted 20 hrs a week.
Problem is after you consider the costs of work, the job paid much less than ui benefits.
I like the idea of getting UI benefits that take into account how many hours you work a week.
So in my perfect world, being a under employed and only working 20 hrs would mean collecting 1/2 the normal weekly benefit amount.
Â
 @DoctorPC  @uscit16791949 Which is why I like the FairTax, and do away with almost all welfare transfer payments - it would then ALWAYS be to your benefit to work and earn more, and there would be no sudden cut-offs on the hours worked as far as the employer is concerned. Our current system has WAY to many perverse benefits.
 @RN1  @uscit16791949  Care to expand on "perverse" ?