Fiscal cliff efforts ongoing, Boehner offers plan

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner pushed ahead on negotiating a broad deal to avert the "fiscal cliff," even as the GOP leader readied a backup plan Tuesday to pressure the White House with little time left to avoid a double hit on the economy.
With exactly two weeks to automatic tax hikes and spending cuts, Boehner offered a measure, dubbed "plan B," that would cancel tax increases due to take effect Jan. 1 on everyone earning $1 million or less, while allowing tax increases on those earning more than that amount.
Boehner insisted that his plan would address the burgeoning deficits and that the president has failed to produce a balance plan in weeks of post-election negotiations.
But the speaker's alternative was a non-starter with the White House and Democrats, and perhaps more damaging to its prospects, got a frosty reception from rank-and-file House Republicans in a morning closed-door meeting.
"The president is willing to continue to work with Republicans to reach a bipartisan solution that averts the fiscal cliff, protects the middle class, helps the economy, and puts our nation on a fiscally sustainable path," White House spokesman Jay Carney said. "But he is not willing to accept a deal that doesn't ask enough of the very wealthiest in taxes and instead shifts the burden to the middle class and seniors."
GOP aides said the leadership strategy is to pass the alternative plan in the House and send it to the Senate. There, Republicans would use their clout to block Democratic alternatives.
Even as he offered his alternative plan, Boehner indicated that negotiations with Obama continue on avoiding the fiscal cliff. Economists inside and outside the government have warned that the combination of spending cuts and tax hikes could stall a weak recovery and threaten a new recession.
"I continue to have hope that we can reach a broader agreement with the White House" that would cancel the tax increases and spending cuts now poised to begin in early January, Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters.
But he said when it comes to offering a package that balances tax increases with spending cuts, "The president is not there yet."
Boehner presented his alternative to his GOP caucus, which reacted coolly to any plan that includes an increase in the tax rate. Conservatives and tea partyers signaled that Boehner faces a tough time rounding up the votes.
"I think it's a terrible idea," said Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho. "For a lot of reasons."
When asked whether there was enough support among fellow Republicans to pass it, Labrador said, "I do not."
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said he is in favor of preventing tax hikes for as many taxpayers as possible, but he's not ready to support Boehner's plan.
"I didn't see enough specificity to support it," Chaffetz said.
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the outgoing chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, said, "I'm not doing cartwheels over it, that's for sure."
Jordan said Boehner's plan crosses a dangerous line by enacting higher tax rates for anyone.
"I think it's a mistake for the Republican Party, so that's what I think a lot of members are struggling with," said the Ohio Republican.
In the Senate, Democratic Leader Harry Reid said the Boehner plan could not pass and urged the speaker to work out an agreement with the president.
"Now is the time to show leadership, not kick the can down the road," Reid said. "Speaker Boehner should focus his energy on forging a large-scale deficit reduction agreement. It would be a shame if Republicans abandoned productive negotiations due to pressure from the tea party, as they have time and again."
In addition to allowing a tax increase for million-dollar earners, the Boehner plan would prevent an expansion of the alternative minimum tax that would otherwise hit 28 million middle- and upper-class Americans with an average $3,700 increase on their 2012 tax returns.
The plan also would extend the current maximum 35 percent tax rate on inheritance, exempting the first $5 million. That tax rate is slated to rise to 55 percent on Jan. 1, with only a $1 million exemption.
Under the plan, the automatic, across-the-board spending cuts of $1.09 trillion to domestic and defense programs would go into effect.
Boehner said GOP efforts to cull savings from Medicare by increasing the eligibility age from 65 to 67 could wait until next year. That source of savings had been an important demand from Republicans earlier in Boehner's negotiations with the White House.
Boehner aides said the call for a separate tax bill does not mean the Republican is cutting off negotiations with Obama on averting the full slate of tax hikes and spending cuts due to take effect next year. Obama and Boehner have each made significant concessions in recent days, signaling a new stage in the negotiations.
Boehner's latest move is an attempt to give Republicans political cover if Washington fails to reach a deal before the end of the year and taxes increase on all income earners.
In the negotiations, the president has dropped his long-held insistence that taxes rise on individuals earning more than $200,000 and families making more than $250,000. He is now offering a new threshold of $400,000 and lowering his 10-year tax revenue goals from the $1.6 trillion he had argued for a few weeks ago.
Obama and Boehner met privately at the White House on Monday, and then spoke again on the phone later that night. Boehner huddled with House GOP members on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning to discuss the status of the talks and review Obama's latest offer.
"We have to stop whatever tax rate increases we can," Boehner said in the meeting, according to prepared remarks released by an aide. "In the absence of an alternative, as of this morning, a "modified Plan B" is the plan."
Unless Congress acts, tax rates will increase on all income earners on Jan. 1. Boehner first opposed raising rates on any income earners, including the wealthiest Americans, but agreed on Friday to accept an increase in tax rates for taxpayers who earn more than $1 million. Boehner's plan would raise about $1 trillion in taxes over 10 years.
In return, Obama also abandoned his demand for permanent borrowing authority. Instead, he is now asking for a new debt limit that would last two years, putting its renewal beyond the politics of a 2014 midterm election.
And in a move sure to create heartburn among some congressional Democrats, Obama is proposing lower cost-of-living increases for Social Security beneficiaries, employing an inflation index that would have far-reaching consequences, including pushing more people into higher income tax brackets.
Those changes, as well as Obama's decision not to seek an extension of a temporary payroll tax cut, would force higher tax payments on the middle class, a wide swath of the population that Obama has repeatedly said he wanted to protect from tax increases.
As public posturing has given way to pragmatism, both sides still seem willing to lock in on a substantial agreement rather than just putting off a fiscal day of reckoning. To that end, Obama has conceded that a big bargain would require giving up some of his proposals.
"I understand that I don't expect the Republicans simply to adopt my budget," he said during his post-election news conference last month. "That's not realistic. So, I recognize we're going to have to compromise."
Despite signs of progress, there are still plenty of disputes to iron out. And people familiar with Obama's proposal were careful not to describe it as his final offer.
The Obama plan seeks $1.2 trillion in revenue over 10 years and $1.2 trillion in 10-year spending reductions. Boehner aides say the revenue is closer to $1.3 trillion if revenue triggered by the new inflation index is counted, and they say the spending reductions are closer to $930 billion if one discounts about $290 billion in lower estimated debt interest.
___
Associated Press writers Alan Fram, Andrew Taylor, Stephen Ohlemacher and Donna Cassata contributed to this report.
With exactly two weeks to automatic tax hikes and spending cuts, Boehner offered a measure, dubbed "plan B," that would cancel tax increases due to take effect Jan. 1 on everyone earning $1 million or less, while allowing tax increases on those earning more than that amount.
Boehner insisted that his plan would address the burgeoning deficits and that the president has failed to produce a balance plan in weeks of post-election negotiations.
But the speaker's alternative was a non-starter with the White House and Democrats, and perhaps more damaging to its prospects, got a frosty reception from rank-and-file House Republicans in a morning closed-door meeting.
"The president is willing to continue to work with Republicans to reach a bipartisan solution that averts the fiscal cliff, protects the middle class, helps the economy, and puts our nation on a fiscally sustainable path," White House spokesman Jay Carney said. "But he is not willing to accept a deal that doesn't ask enough of the very wealthiest in taxes and instead shifts the burden to the middle class and seniors."
GOP aides said the leadership strategy is to pass the alternative plan in the House and send it to the Senate. There, Republicans would use their clout to block Democratic alternatives.
Even as he offered his alternative plan, Boehner indicated that negotiations with Obama continue on avoiding the fiscal cliff. Economists inside and outside the government have warned that the combination of spending cuts and tax hikes could stall a weak recovery and threaten a new recession.
"I continue to have hope that we can reach a broader agreement with the White House" that would cancel the tax increases and spending cuts now poised to begin in early January, Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters.
But he said when it comes to offering a package that balances tax increases with spending cuts, "The president is not there yet."
Boehner presented his alternative to his GOP caucus, which reacted coolly to any plan that includes an increase in the tax rate. Conservatives and tea partyers signaled that Boehner faces a tough time rounding up the votes.
"I think it's a terrible idea," said Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho. "For a lot of reasons."
When asked whether there was enough support among fellow Republicans to pass it, Labrador said, "I do not."
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said he is in favor of preventing tax hikes for as many taxpayers as possible, but he's not ready to support Boehner's plan.
"I didn't see enough specificity to support it," Chaffetz said.
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the outgoing chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, said, "I'm not doing cartwheels over it, that's for sure."
Jordan said Boehner's plan crosses a dangerous line by enacting higher tax rates for anyone.
"I think it's a mistake for the Republican Party, so that's what I think a lot of members are struggling with," said the Ohio Republican.
In the Senate, Democratic Leader Harry Reid said the Boehner plan could not pass and urged the speaker to work out an agreement with the president.
"Now is the time to show leadership, not kick the can down the road," Reid said. "Speaker Boehner should focus his energy on forging a large-scale deficit reduction agreement. It would be a shame if Republicans abandoned productive negotiations due to pressure from the tea party, as they have time and again."
In addition to allowing a tax increase for million-dollar earners, the Boehner plan would prevent an expansion of the alternative minimum tax that would otherwise hit 28 million middle- and upper-class Americans with an average $3,700 increase on their 2012 tax returns.
The plan also would extend the current maximum 35 percent tax rate on inheritance, exempting the first $5 million. That tax rate is slated to rise to 55 percent on Jan. 1, with only a $1 million exemption.
Under the plan, the automatic, across-the-board spending cuts of $1.09 trillion to domestic and defense programs would go into effect.
Boehner said GOP efforts to cull savings from Medicare by increasing the eligibility age from 65 to 67 could wait until next year. That source of savings had been an important demand from Republicans earlier in Boehner's negotiations with the White House.
Boehner aides said the call for a separate tax bill does not mean the Republican is cutting off negotiations with Obama on averting the full slate of tax hikes and spending cuts due to take effect next year. Obama and Boehner have each made significant concessions in recent days, signaling a new stage in the negotiations.
Boehner's latest move is an attempt to give Republicans political cover if Washington fails to reach a deal before the end of the year and taxes increase on all income earners.
In the negotiations, the president has dropped his long-held insistence that taxes rise on individuals earning more than $200,000 and families making more than $250,000. He is now offering a new threshold of $400,000 and lowering his 10-year tax revenue goals from the $1.6 trillion he had argued for a few weeks ago.
Obama and Boehner met privately at the White House on Monday, and then spoke again on the phone later that night. Boehner huddled with House GOP members on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning to discuss the status of the talks and review Obama's latest offer.
"We have to stop whatever tax rate increases we can," Boehner said in the meeting, according to prepared remarks released by an aide. "In the absence of an alternative, as of this morning, a "modified Plan B" is the plan."
Unless Congress acts, tax rates will increase on all income earners on Jan. 1. Boehner first opposed raising rates on any income earners, including the wealthiest Americans, but agreed on Friday to accept an increase in tax rates for taxpayers who earn more than $1 million. Boehner's plan would raise about $1 trillion in taxes over 10 years.
In return, Obama also abandoned his demand for permanent borrowing authority. Instead, he is now asking for a new debt limit that would last two years, putting its renewal beyond the politics of a 2014 midterm election.
And in a move sure to create heartburn among some congressional Democrats, Obama is proposing lower cost-of-living increases for Social Security beneficiaries, employing an inflation index that would have far-reaching consequences, including pushing more people into higher income tax brackets.
Those changes, as well as Obama's decision not to seek an extension of a temporary payroll tax cut, would force higher tax payments on the middle class, a wide swath of the population that Obama has repeatedly said he wanted to protect from tax increases.
As public posturing has given way to pragmatism, both sides still seem willing to lock in on a substantial agreement rather than just putting off a fiscal day of reckoning. To that end, Obama has conceded that a big bargain would require giving up some of his proposals.
"I understand that I don't expect the Republicans simply to adopt my budget," he said during his post-election news conference last month. "That's not realistic. So, I recognize we're going to have to compromise."
Despite signs of progress, there are still plenty of disputes to iron out. And people familiar with Obama's proposal were careful not to describe it as his final offer.
The Obama plan seeks $1.2 trillion in revenue over 10 years and $1.2 trillion in 10-year spending reductions. Boehner aides say the revenue is closer to $1.3 trillion if revenue triggered by the new inflation index is counted, and they say the spending reductions are closer to $930 billion if one discounts about $290 billion in lower estimated debt interest.
___
Associated Press writers Alan Fram, Andrew Taylor, Stephen Ohlemacher and Donna Cassata contributed to this report.
How much longer are Americans going to let this ridiculous partisanship constantly threaten our livelihoods? Our entire way of life is teetering on edge because one group of rich guys doesn't agree with another group of rich guys. It's a battle to protect interests, and the American people aren't on the list. How is this acceptable?Â
Holy crap that's a big inheritance tax.
Well, that is real productive, Bohner. I don't understand why so many of the middle class are defending the very people who have taken so much away from them.
 @Hagar Guns and Bibles, that's why.Â
Only Rate increases on people making over $1 million a year... sheesh Boehner - this plan will not affect hardly anyone as oh snap Even you make around $174 k a year.... OMG with that plan you will keep your tax breaks.... NO WAY IN HELL will that be approved! ... heck even your income will still keep those tax breaks... ON YOUR EARNED INCOME IN THE GOVERNMENT.... of course your investment portfolio likely nets you way more than that so you are trying to protect that and your friends assets... I don't think so!Â
komo what? Obama has summited two different offers and as far as I know Rep. turned both down because it put tax rates back to normal for the very rich.
Even Boehner's own cronies don't like his plan. Thank God this guy isn't President.
@mstipton Thank God a lot of people from the right never became president. Unfortunately there were a number of times when they did and look what happened. From Hoover to Bush in one fell swoop. That pretty much sums it up. Now I am sure some loony right wing repug, tbagginâ tbagger, neo con or worse will pipe up and pull some blue dress out of some plastic bag somewhere. Gawd they are delusional.
Yeah, because God forbid that the wealthiest people pay taxes the way they did in the past.  They should be lucky they're not paying 1960s or even 70s rates.  Or even 80s (under Reagan.)  Even under Clinton and Bush I, if they'd paid their fair effing share, we could fund police and schools again, and you guys wouldn't be whining about how there is no  money to help the mentally ill in America.   Nope.  Can't have the Walmart Heirs or the Romney's paying their fair share at all on PERSONAL wealth.  Making that distinction because so many people are so clueless. "oh... they cry, these are the JOB creators!!"  Really? They create jobs with their personal take-home pay???  Nope.  The "job creators" as coined by the Koch Brothers fake think tanks (tax free, by the way.. Americans for Prosperity, etc.) means this:  We want to pay next to nothing in taxes, so that the personal wealth we glean from sending jobs to India and China, and having your $400.00 purse made in Bangladesh by people in sweat shops for $1.00, is as fat as possible.  Boehner is worth millions, and he lives in a place that doesn't have to worry about criminals living on the street.  The overwhelming majority of Americans, according to all the polls, WANT people like him and the Koch Bros, and Walmart Heirs, and CEOs who now make 475X what their average worker in America makes (yes, this is true, all the other countries are around 20x at the most!) to pay their fair share.   Ask yourself. HOW many companies and business not only OPENED but thrived during the times when the tax code was operating as originally intended??? How many of those companies are still here?  The ones that opened during the higher tax rates?  And how many opened and failed while they were ridiculously low?  (Circuity City, Borders Books, etc.)  Seriously. It has nothing to do with the tax rate on the wealthiest people in America (trust me, none of you are in the top 1%)  It has to do with the Average American having a JOB and disposable income to spend on their products.  Oh wait.. these uber wealthy people like the Kochs and Walmart heirs, and Bain Capital, all made their money by killing American jobs and sending them overseas.  Has nothing to do with taxes, Has to do with trying to amass the biggest PERSONAL wealth through the destruction of American bread-winner jobs.  When they paid their fair share, there were still millionaires and MORE successful companies that stayed in business... and the schools had free after-school recreation, we had job programs to lift kids in poverty out of poverty and out of gangs, we had mental health facilities and services. We actually had... TWO police in each police car, which meant that they truly were able to work and know their own neighborhoods and keep crime down.  We had funded libraries, great infrastructure.  Folks, guys like Boenher (who is filthy rich) want us to be like Haiti.  The and the Koch Bros and the Day Traders on Wall Street, want this to be like a third world country. They want the worst economic divide in America, to get worse.  They want us to beg for scraps, while they live in their gated communities with the money they made sending jobs to Bangladesh.  Don't be fooled.Â
 @DT Go open your own business.  What others make or taxed is irrelevant to your situation. Your rants are comical. Hey! I hear our next Secretary of State (Senator Thurston Kerry III) married a rich heiress. Funny how your Blue Team friends never want to tax wealth instead of income. Wonder why that is? Never hear you babble about the rich and powerful in bed with the Blue Team. (GE, anyone).
Â
Bain ? Really. The company that government and union pensions invested billions in? The one that had an 80% turnaround rate? That one? We need more Bains and less of the 47% gimmegimmees.
Â
The Koch Brothers? The ones that employ 50,000 here in the US, many if not most Union members?
Â
Just a reminder, police and fire are not the responsibility of the Federal Government but you already knew that.
Â
It's always a hoot to listen to people who pay zero income tax blather about why others should pay more. Keep it up.
@Getov Mylon (cont from above) Some of those companies, too, later ran into trouble. Of the 10 businesses on which Bain investors scored their biggest gains, four later landed in bankruptcy court.â I.e. Bain a lot of the time took them over, took out huge loans on them/loaded them up with debt, then took as much money out of them as they could and left them floundering and dying on the beach. Yep. Sounds like a good strategy. For a vulture. You mean these kocks? âthe plan to kill the unions is right out of the Koch Brothers play book. Koch-backed groups like Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Reason Foundation have long taken a very antagonistic view toward public-sector unions. Several of these groups have urged the eradication of these unions. The Kochs also invited Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, an anti-union outfit, to a June 2010 confab in Aspen, Coloradoâ It's always a hoot to listen to you blather. Keep it up.
@Getov Mylon Oh most of them are really good. There are always a few that leave a lot to be desired though.
 @lakeview Like a bus driver? Those guys are jerks...
@jowsuf ;->> Maybe that is what Getov is out looking for as we post.
@lakeview Yeah Getov is the former Sid who was the formerâ¦.. whateverâ¦.. and is sometimes the current ârelease the crackerâ, or something like that. But he is still the highly unionized bus driver that he always was and always will be. Go figure. Not that there is anything wrong with that or anything.
 @flyskiwindsurf  @Getov Geez, why don't you two get a room already?
 @Getov Mylon My crystal ball tells me that someone works for King Co. Transit?Â
@Getov Mylon ummmâ¦â¦ Yep. Thatâs about what I thought. But I would be more than willing to still take the bet. Name the amount. ;->>
@Getov Mylon I donât even know what you receive but I would be willing to bet some serious money that what I roll in is at least triple what you receive.
 @flyskiwindsurf Gotta go, off to my $80,000 + full bennies job. Toodles!
 @flyskiwindsurf  @Getov No, I hope you get a raise.
@Getov Mylon You tell us. Why? Are you hoping and looking forward to something like that with bated breath? Or for you it is baited breath.
 @flyskiwindsurf  @Getov Is the minimum wage going up on the first?Â
@Getov Mylon Re: âWhat others make or taxed is irrelevant to your situation.â Not true. Minor detail. I thought that it was mostly the Red Team that did not want estate (death) taxes. âAmong the findings: 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost. Another finding was that Bain produced stellar returns for its investorsâyet the bulk of these came from just a small number of its investments. Ten deals produced more than 70% of the dollar gains. (cont below)
 @DT http://www.komonews.com/news/business/Too-big-to-jail-Execs-avoid-laundering-charges-183959691.html
Â
Wait, Blue Team letting Banking Criminals off scot free? How can that be?Â
 @Getov Mylon   They're all on the same team in this regard, I think.
No surprises here. Boehner is useless.