House GOP puts off vote on 'Plan B'

WASHINGTON (AP) - Confronted with a revolt among the rank and file, House Republicans abruptly put off a vote Thursday night on legislation allowing tax rates to rise for households earning $1 million and up, complicating attempts to avoid a year-end "fiscal cliff" that threatens to send the economy into recession.
In a brief statement, House Speaker John Boehner said the bill "did not have sufficient support from our members to pass." At the same time he challenged President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to work on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff.
"The Senate must now act," Boehner, R-Ohio, said.
Emerging from a hurriedly-called evening meeting of House Republicans, Ohio Rep. Steve LaTourette said Boehner had told lawmakers he's "going to call the president and he's going to go down and talk to him and maybe they can hammer something out."
There was no immediate response from either the White House or Reid's office.
The legislation was crafted to prevent tax increases set to kick in on Jan. 1, 2013, on tens of millions of Americans. But another provision that would have let rates rise for those at the upper income range - a violation of long-standing Republican orthodoxy - triggered the opposition of anti-tax lawmakers inside the party.
The abrupt turn of events left precious little time for divided government to prevent across-the-board tax increases and deep spending cuts from taking effect with the new year. Economists say the combination threatened a return to recession for an economy that has been recovering slowly from the last one.
The House will not meet again until after Christmas, if then, and the Senate is expected to meet briefly on Friday, then not reconvene until next Thursday.
The fiscal cliff issue has dominated the postelection session of Congress. More broadly, it marks the end of a tumultuous two-year period that began when tea party-backed Republicans roared into the House demanding lower taxes, only to be asked by their leadership to bless higher tax rates at upper incomes.
Boehner said Thursday night's legislation - he'd dubbed it Plan B - marked a move to "protect as many American families and small businesses as possible from the tax hikes that are already scheduled to occur" with the new year.
Referring to one of the core themes of Obama's re-election campaign, he said the president has called for legislation to protect 98 percent of the American people from a tax hike. "Well, today we're going to do better than that," he said of the measure that raises total taxes by slightly more than $300 billion over a decade. "Our bill would protect 99.81 percent of the American people from an increase in taxes."
Democrats said that by keeping tax rates unchanged below $1 million - Obama wants the level to be $400,000 - Republicans had turned the bill into a tax break for the wealthy. They also accused Republicans of crafting their measure to impose a tax increase on 11 million middle class families.
"This is a ploy, not a plan," said Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich. He accused Republicans of being "deeply cynical," saying the legislation would scale back some education and child tax credits.
A companion bill on the evening's House agenda, meant to build GOP support for the tax bill, called for elimination of an estimated $97 billion in cuts to the Pentagon and certain domestic programs over a decade. It cleared the House on a partisan vote of 215-209 and is an updated version of legislation that passed a little more than six months ago.
Those cuts would be replaced with savings totaling $314 billion, achieved through increases in the amount federal employees contribute toward their pensions and through cuts in social programs such as food stamps and the health care law that Obama signed earlier in his term.
Ironically, the votes were set in motion earlier in the week, after Boehner and Obama had significantly narrowed their differences on a compromise to avoid the fiscal cliff.
Republican officials said that members of the GOP leadership had balked at the terms that were emerging. Democrats said Boehner's abrupt decision to shift to his Plan B - legislation drafted unilaterally by Republicans - reflected a calculation that he lacked support from his own rank and file to win the votes needed for the type of agreement he was negotiating with the president.
Asked at a news conference a few hours before the scheduled vote if that were so, Boehner avoided a direct answer. "Listen, the president knows that I've been able to keep my word on every agreement we've ever made," he said.
At the same time, Boehner hinted broadly that however Democrats end up responding to the legislation he placed before the House, it will not be the end of the attempt to keep the economy from reaching the fiscal cliff.
"Our country faces serious challenges. The president and I in our respective roles have a responsibility to work together to get them resolved. I expect that we'll continue to work together."
Obama made it clear on Wednesday that he, too, is prepared for further negotiations, and numerous officials in both parties in the Senate predicted that might happen quickly after the votes in the House.
The tax bill would prevent scheduled increases from taking effect on Jan. 1 on all income under $1 million. Above that, the current rate of 35 percent would rise to 39.6 percent, the level in effect more than a decade ago when then-President George W. Bush signed tax cuts into law that now are expiring.
The top rates also would rise on capital gains and dividends from 15 percent to 20 percent.
By any measure, the two bills in the House were far removed from the latest offers that officials said Obama and Boehner had tendered.
Obama is now seeking $1.2 trillion in higher tax revenue, down from the $1.6 trillion he initially sought. He also has softened his demand for higher tax rates on household incomes so they would apply to incomes over $400,000 instead of the $250,000 he cited during his successful campaign for a new term.
He also has offered more than $800 billion in spending cuts over a decade, half of it from Medicare and Medicaid, $200 billion from farm and other benefit programs, $100 billion from defense and $100 billion from a broad swath of government accounts ranging from parks to transportation to education.
In a key concession to Republicans, the president also has agreed to slow the rise in cost-of-living increases in Social Security and other benefit programs, at a savings estimated at about $130 billion over a decade.
By contrast, Boehner's most recent offer allowed for about $940 billion in higher taxes over a decade, with higher rates for annual incomes over $1 million.
His latest offer seeks about $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, not counting the change in the cost-of-living adjustment that Obama has said he can accept. He is seeking $600 billion in savings from Medicare and Medicaid, $200 billion from other benefit programs and $300 billion from a range of government accounts.
___
Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor, Alan Fram and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.
In a brief statement, House Speaker John Boehner said the bill "did not have sufficient support from our members to pass." At the same time he challenged President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to work on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff.
"The Senate must now act," Boehner, R-Ohio, said.
Emerging from a hurriedly-called evening meeting of House Republicans, Ohio Rep. Steve LaTourette said Boehner had told lawmakers he's "going to call the president and he's going to go down and talk to him and maybe they can hammer something out."
There was no immediate response from either the White House or Reid's office.
The legislation was crafted to prevent tax increases set to kick in on Jan. 1, 2013, on tens of millions of Americans. But another provision that would have let rates rise for those at the upper income range - a violation of long-standing Republican orthodoxy - triggered the opposition of anti-tax lawmakers inside the party.
The abrupt turn of events left precious little time for divided government to prevent across-the-board tax increases and deep spending cuts from taking effect with the new year. Economists say the combination threatened a return to recession for an economy that has been recovering slowly from the last one.
The House will not meet again until after Christmas, if then, and the Senate is expected to meet briefly on Friday, then not reconvene until next Thursday.
The fiscal cliff issue has dominated the postelection session of Congress. More broadly, it marks the end of a tumultuous two-year period that began when tea party-backed Republicans roared into the House demanding lower taxes, only to be asked by their leadership to bless higher tax rates at upper incomes.
Boehner said Thursday night's legislation - he'd dubbed it Plan B - marked a move to "protect as many American families and small businesses as possible from the tax hikes that are already scheduled to occur" with the new year.
Referring to one of the core themes of Obama's re-election campaign, he said the president has called for legislation to protect 98 percent of the American people from a tax hike. "Well, today we're going to do better than that," he said of the measure that raises total taxes by slightly more than $300 billion over a decade. "Our bill would protect 99.81 percent of the American people from an increase in taxes."
Democrats said that by keeping tax rates unchanged below $1 million - Obama wants the level to be $400,000 - Republicans had turned the bill into a tax break for the wealthy. They also accused Republicans of crafting their measure to impose a tax increase on 11 million middle class families.
"This is a ploy, not a plan," said Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich. He accused Republicans of being "deeply cynical," saying the legislation would scale back some education and child tax credits.
A companion bill on the evening's House agenda, meant to build GOP support for the tax bill, called for elimination of an estimated $97 billion in cuts to the Pentagon and certain domestic programs over a decade. It cleared the House on a partisan vote of 215-209 and is an updated version of legislation that passed a little more than six months ago.
Those cuts would be replaced with savings totaling $314 billion, achieved through increases in the amount federal employees contribute toward their pensions and through cuts in social programs such as food stamps and the health care law that Obama signed earlier in his term.
Ironically, the votes were set in motion earlier in the week, after Boehner and Obama had significantly narrowed their differences on a compromise to avoid the fiscal cliff.
Republican officials said that members of the GOP leadership had balked at the terms that were emerging. Democrats said Boehner's abrupt decision to shift to his Plan B - legislation drafted unilaterally by Republicans - reflected a calculation that he lacked support from his own rank and file to win the votes needed for the type of agreement he was negotiating with the president.
Asked at a news conference a few hours before the scheduled vote if that were so, Boehner avoided a direct answer. "Listen, the president knows that I've been able to keep my word on every agreement we've ever made," he said.
At the same time, Boehner hinted broadly that however Democrats end up responding to the legislation he placed before the House, it will not be the end of the attempt to keep the economy from reaching the fiscal cliff.
"Our country faces serious challenges. The president and I in our respective roles have a responsibility to work together to get them resolved. I expect that we'll continue to work together."
Obama made it clear on Wednesday that he, too, is prepared for further negotiations, and numerous officials in both parties in the Senate predicted that might happen quickly after the votes in the House.
The tax bill would prevent scheduled increases from taking effect on Jan. 1 on all income under $1 million. Above that, the current rate of 35 percent would rise to 39.6 percent, the level in effect more than a decade ago when then-President George W. Bush signed tax cuts into law that now are expiring.
The top rates also would rise on capital gains and dividends from 15 percent to 20 percent.
By any measure, the two bills in the House were far removed from the latest offers that officials said Obama and Boehner had tendered.
Obama is now seeking $1.2 trillion in higher tax revenue, down from the $1.6 trillion he initially sought. He also has softened his demand for higher tax rates on household incomes so they would apply to incomes over $400,000 instead of the $250,000 he cited during his successful campaign for a new term.
He also has offered more than $800 billion in spending cuts over a decade, half of it from Medicare and Medicaid, $200 billion from farm and other benefit programs, $100 billion from defense and $100 billion from a broad swath of government accounts ranging from parks to transportation to education.
In a key concession to Republicans, the president also has agreed to slow the rise in cost-of-living increases in Social Security and other benefit programs, at a savings estimated at about $130 billion over a decade.
By contrast, Boehner's most recent offer allowed for about $940 billion in higher taxes over a decade, with higher rates for annual incomes over $1 million.
His latest offer seeks about $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, not counting the change in the cost-of-living adjustment that Obama has said he can accept. He is seeking $600 billion in savings from Medicare and Medicaid, $200 billion from other benefit programs and $300 billion from a range of government accounts.
___
Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor, Alan Fram and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.
I can see the Republican party is going off the cliff soon.They keep screwing things up
and work against the majority of the general public,they better start to look for jobs !
You are finished dudes !
This really shouldn't be all that hard. If people are living longer (on average) then raise the entrance age for SS and Medicare by 2 years or so. Trim defense spending by 25% (even the generals are calling for reductions) and take a pencil to all budgets (including education, all the 'spook' agencies, and all the 'support' agencies) and scale back or eliminate ALL subsidies over the next 3 years. Our infrastructure could use less additions and more maintenance.
Â
We did fine with taxes as they were in the late nineties, so implement a realistic flat tax that reflects those effective rates and go from there. No more tax loopholes, deductions, etc. Make it simple and workable, and send most of the IRS packing. Come to think of it, by scaling back most programs there should be fewer government employees so even more savings. Roll all politician benefit plans into the same quagmire that we are part of too while they are at it.
Â
These are just off the top ideas... what do you have?
 @theToucan Good ideas so far. We should also change every form of welfare, transfer payment, or assistance and put it on a sliding scale (no bright-line cut-offs) so that it is ALWAYS to your benefit to work and earn money separate from any government check. Right now there are so many perverse incentives to encourage people to NOT work to improve their personal situation, that is is not only soul-crushing, it's economy and budget-crushing. Deregulate a lot of industries, like health care, and let the market determine what works most efficiently. Tell ALL government workers that if the budget isn't balanced, then their paychecks will get cut by a similar percentage.
Let's go over the cliff. The Republican party will not win a national election again for a long, long time!! They will be blamed for this! They seem to forget that 98% of the country that votes will not forget, and we are smart enough to not believe the spin they will attempt to put on this during the next Presidential election!
 @Julie I remember people saying there was a permanent R majority after the landslide in 1994. Then there was a permanent Dem majority in 2008. Things change. People change. The coming fiscal meltdown in SS et all scheduled for ~2017 when the "trust fund" runs dry will cause a LOT of retirements, I think, and no obvious groups to sweep into power.
Â
This current isn't a R mess. it takes a strong bipartisan effort to screw up this bad.
@RN1 @Julie RN1, finally some sense. Theres to much finger pointing. There is enough to go around.
The GOP is tied up in a civil war that will kill it. Either they refuse to give the President what he wants, a tax cut for 98% of Americans and thus the public blames them for raising taxes and votes them out in 2014, or they give in to the President and give him the tax cuts for 98% of Americans and then the GOP gets tea-partied in their 2014 primaries and replaced with "rape candidates" who all lose their general elections.
Â
The GOP is dead, same as the whigs before them.Â
 @NorthwestEconomist There s a civil war inside the Dem party on what to do about entitlements, too. It's just getting lot less press. Hmmm... wonder why.
 @RN1  @NorthwestEconomist I agree, personally I'd like to see both parties go away, too much crap is bundled into both of them. However, I think that the GOP has a lot more people in its base that are brainwashed by all the hardline social issues and the "don't tax the rich" mentality so the damage there will be higher, whereas with the democrats I think that many who vote democrat only do so because they are pushed there with a "lesser of two evils" approach and there won't be a huge falling out when the democrats are forced to reform entitlement programs.Â
 @NorthwestEconomist i agree in part. Many of the people I know vote R as a "less or two evils" vote because they are trying to run a small business, and the regulatory cost and tax rates pushed from the left will/are killing them. They see the constant race-baiting from the left, the class warfare and redistribution-policies vs the work-and-growth policies, and while there is a lot of social stuff they don't like from the social-con right, that simply doesn't affect them as much as the welfare-state junk from the left does.
$400 billion in cuts proposed from medicare and medicaid, but only $100 billion from military spending. We still have it all wrong. 4 to 1 ratio between health care and military spending, when we have the largest standing military in the world is just wrong.
 @Bellevue Scott Just remember - even if we totally zeroed out the defense budget, we'd STILL have a multi-hundred-billion dollar deficit. THAT'S how big the spending problem is. Even if we took EVERYTHING in income from those making a million dollars a year or more (even assuming they didn't change their behavior, which they will) the extra tax revenue would run the government for less than three months. The bump that Obama and the Dems keep making a big deal out of would run the government for only about eight days. slightly more than a week. THAT'S how big the problem is, and how stupidly small the proposed solutions are. Neither side is being realistic about actually *solving* the debt problem, which will eat us all.
 @Bellevue Scott i beg to differ,but we do NOT have the largest standing military. China has a MILLION man army, by far the largest in the world. We do, however, have more military infrastructure.
 @lazarus  @Bellevue Scott most of the military is weaponry.  head count means only more to kill when the weapons fall on the ground.
Â
Â
Politicians...gotta love em. First they screw up the whole economy and impact millions of people by letting Wall Street do anything it wants and now they can't get past their own myths and gridlock. Awesome.Â
 @Citizen#3457899654 And yet, people keep not only voting in the same politicians, they keep voting for MORE government, even though they KNOW it doesn't work well.
The poor Republicans. So many factions and splinter groups they can't agree on anything. What a dysfunctional party of people. They are going to doom themselves. Forget the American people sent them to Washington to work for the American People not the Corporations and rich contributors to their campaigns.
Ah yes, Eric Cantor, that old trick if you don't want to answer any questions from the press, pretend you're talking on your cell phone. Of course what an opportune time to talk on you phone is when you are walking past the press, LOL. **Reference the picture above**.
Jerk offs. Â God forbid that people making over 1 million in PERSONAL income (after deductions, mind you,) pay anything CLOSE to what they paid in the 90s. Â Heck, they should be thankful they're not paying what they paid under Reagan. Â Cuz God knows that people like the Koch Bros and The Bain Execs, need MORE estates. Â While everyone else has to do without acceptable levels of police service, job training, infrastructure, senior benefits, and job programs to help the middle class who have lost millions of jobs BECAUSE those very people who get the fat tax breaks, sent their effing jobs to China and India!!! Â Isn't that ironic?? Â
 @DT Envy and class hatred are bitter fruit to eat. most of those that will get hammered by higher marginal taxes are small business owners, and they won't keep working as hard for less - they'll cut back on employees, employee benefits, employee hours, employee wages, etc. The high-income folks will get hurt a bit, but those down the food chain will get hurt a lot more.
 @RN1  @DT Wow, you must listen to FOX news! this is the biggest set of hyper fear set out by the Republicans, and you fell right into their trap!
 @Julie  @DT No. Spoken as one who has family and friends that run their own small businesses, and deal with the paperwork and side effects of these sorts of things on a regular basis.
 @RN1  @DT If small business owners are taking home a million dollars after deductions, then maybe we need to redefine small business.
@RN1 It is difficult not to dislike a lot of these corporations and ultra rich who have bought off many many of these Republicans in order to get them to provide even lower taxes/tax rates on themselves, all while promising more jobs as long as their taxes remain low. Then they get even more tax breaks when they send those said jobs overseas. Heck now a number of these corps., as well as a number of rich for a while now, are saying that their taxes need to be raised. Go figure. Of course you will now say well just let those particular corps. and people pay more and leave everyone else alone. Yeah right. That will really solve the problem. You and many others need to pull your heads out and try to start smelling some fresh air. You obviously donât even know what the heck that you are even posting about in the rest of your blurg flop. Obviously. As Hawt says, you are just on a continuous do loop. Rinse and repeat.
@RN1 There you go even again, making the completely asinine assumption that the only other viable option is to have products produced by the govt. How about instead that there is just a little more fair/equitable competition. I.e. require similar rights, conditions, environmental requirements, freedom from abuse, anti-monopolies, etc. etc. for all competitors.
@RN1 (even more cont from above) I would agree with the KISS strategy though. However it might take quite a while for that to get implemented and the âfiscal cliffâ is just around the corner. Although I donât believe that it will be quite as bad as many are saying that it might be. However quite a number will definitely be hurting then, even again, even more, etc., at least for a while. It probably will depend on how long this cluster fiasco continues to go on.
@RN1 (cont from above) But back to your post. Actually I particularly love Bill and I believe that Steve was brilliant and did a great job. Except for what Bob points out. I.e. they both did a lot of exploitation of other companies, people, countries, etc. But that is obviously at least one way to get ahead. It appears that you are almost advocating regulations, or lack of same, similar to what China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. might have. I.e. serf, slave, and prison labor for all and letâs have lots of poisons flowing down our rivers, across our land, and into our air. (even more cont below)
@RN1 Who says that I hate them? I donât hate them at all. As usual you just put words and then even more words into peopleâs various posts. Go figure. You canât win a debate on its own merits so you just try to throw up straw men to debate in order to beat the straw men back down and then set them on fire. Go figure even again. Youâre an absolute loser. (cont below)
 @RN1  @flyskiwindsurf Have you went to best buy, acer, or dell and ask to install an non-Windows OS? Nope, they don't sell computers without an Windows OS. The only way to have a non-windows OS is if you build a computer yourself. Yet, most Americans are not able to build a computer themselves due to knowledge, time and cost. Microsoft created a culture which required most people MUST have an windows OS to run every PC.Â
 @bab5crusade  @flyskiwindsurf But people freely bought their products. They were not coerced. Have you looked at government produce software and hardware solutions? Not exactly at good price-points...
 @RN1  @flyskiwindsurfÂ
Bill Gates got rich by creating a near complete monopoly in the OS market. Steve Jobs got rich by exploiting a nitch that no one dared to take so early in the industry and also most electronics are built by sweatshop labor by Foxconn. Â
 @flyskiwindsurf  @RN1 The financial industry aside (like JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, etc) the way people get rich is by providing a good or service at a profitable price, so that lots of people will buy it. don't like the product or price? Don't buy it! That's how Steve Jobs got rich, and Bill Gates, etc. why hate them for being successful? The way to get corruption and money out of politics is to get them out of regulating and micromanaging every little thing - if there is no loophole to help write, or subsidy to angle for, or restriction to work around, most of the lobbiests would go away, and therefore much of the money would go away. A *simple* tax code would do far more to clean up DC than any particular rate would. Simpler regulations, same thing.
 @RN1  @DT The talking points are strong in this one.
@TehHawt Yeah he is obviously a minion of the Sith.
This comment has been deleted
 @gotrhythm Low information voters are the reason the GOP members of the house exist.  Troll on, sir.  Troll on.
 @TehHawt  @gotrhythm Riiiight. Like, all those inner city drop-out voting 95% for Obama are HIGH information voters... Yeah....
 @bab5crusade  @TehHawt  @gotrhythm Were those his ONLY votes? No. Were they greater than the margin of win (roughly 3 million)? Yes.
 @RN1  @TehHawt  @gotrhythm Wow, you saying that Obama got more votes because of school drop outs and not just because more people live in cities?
Why is no one talking about EUC running out? If these incompetent blowhards in DC don't find the middle ground we are gonna be in a lot of hurt ,
@hinterland Some are talking about it. But a lot of Republicans obviously want it to run out and they want a lot of people to be in a lot of hurt.
Arrogant, self-serving, pos's bathing in narcissism , Wake up people, these few idiots are governing our lives, and what are the masses doing? They can't agree on simple matters , why? Government is too big!
Sure would be nice if the jerks could try to get along and actually do the country some good instead of sinking the whole country! What a mess when the elected officals act like children and have to try to make some sort of a name for themselves and it isn't always a good one. I don't feel the Republicans we voted into office really have our country or the people in it first most in their mind. They are mostly protecting their own pocket books. Aren't there a lot of millionaire Republicans?Â
 @yoda get along they should...
""The Senate must now act," Boehner, R-Ohio, said."
Why? HE is the one who couldn't bring his people in line - and those people MUST be part of the process, a process that actually BELONGS to the House.
There is nothing more that the Senate or President can do to help Boehner pass HIS measure...
Perhaps the best thing Boehner could do is tell his people either they go along, or he resigns the leadership of the GOP in the House. That would at least protect HIS butt when the House of cards falls...
From that photo, it looks like Eric Cantor has just the guy in mind to replace Boehner...
A democratic republic requires a give and take - compromise.
Â
Unyielding absolutists will destroy us.
@NBA_Is_Useless That is kind of what Goldwater said way back when. When there actually still were many real Republicans still around.
 @flyskiwindsurf  @NBA_Is_Useless They became Democrats. The Democrats got more moderate Republicans to more the party more right.Â
 @NBA_Is_Useless And the dems went too far for comfort to compromise...yet this is still what we're left with.
@NBA_Is_Useless Yeah, Senator DeMint said it best today in his farewell speech on the floor when he told everyone to do the right thing instead of listening to partisan think tank groups. Pretty ironic stuff considering he is leaving the Senate to work for the Heritage Foundation, a GOP think tank. Â
 @lakeview  @NBA_Is_Useless "Pretty ironic stuff considering he is leaving the Senate to work for the Heritage Foundation, a GOP think tank."
Pretty ironic that HE would be saying such a thing in the first place, since he has often been the one leading the mounted charge off the cliff...