Dems signal Obama flexibility on spending in talks
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican House Speaker John Boehner is offering to let taxes rise on wealthy Americans' investment income and dividends as part of a deal to avert the "fiscal cliff," officials said Monday amid signs that President Barack Obama is ready to make a key concession of his own in urgent, high-level negotiations.
On a day the two men met for about 45 minutes at the White House, officials said they detected a receptiveness by the administration side to proposals to slow the growth of annual cost-of-living benefits paid to recipients of Social Security and other government retirement programs.
If so, it would show Obama's willingness to move toward Boehner in the secretive talks that are unfolding against a year-end deadline. Without legislation to the contrary, tax rates will rise for nearly all wage earners and spending cuts will begin at the Pentagon and in domestic programs across government.
Economists inside and outside the government have warned that the combination of the two could send the economy into recession.
Other major issues are part of the negotiations. Without action by Congress, for example, long-term unemployment benefits will expire for millions at the end of the year, and doctors will face a cut in the payments they receive for treating Medicare patients.
Democrat Obama has also called for assistance for hard-pressed homeowners as well as fresh economist stimulus measures, and some Democrats want to include a sizeable amount of disaster aid in any legislation to offset the cost of Superstorm Sandy.
Officials who disclosed developments in the cliff talks insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly describe the secret negotiations.
At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney sidestepped when asked about curbing cost-of-living increases for benefit programs. The president "is prepared to make tough choices. He also understands that his bill will not, as written, likely be what the final compromise, if there is one, looks like," he said.
"But he insists and will insist before he signed anything that there is the balance that he seeks that is fair and that seniors aren't bearing the burden so that the healthy bear less - those who can afford it most bear less."
A spokesman for Boehner declined comment on the tax proposals.
Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner met with Boehner and his top aides at the White House for less than an hour during the day. While neither side provided significant details, Republicans have made it clear in recent days that it is the president's turn to propose savings from Medicare and other benefit program following Boehner's agreement last week to let tax rates rise at incomes higher than $1 million.
Officials familiar with the talks said that under the Ohio Republican's proposal, the top tax rate on capital gains would go to 20 percent, up from the current 15 percent. The top rate on dividends also would climb, although it was not known what the new level would be, and the estate tax would also be adjusted to produce more government revenue.
Under current law, the top capital gains tax rate would rise to 20 percent automatically at the end of the year if the cuts enacted during George W. Bush's White House tenure were allowed to expire.
The tax on dividends would also rise. The estate tax would be 55 percent on estates after allowance for a $1 million exemption.
As the talks progress, Republicans across the party's spectrum are eager to turn public attention toward spending cuts, rather than remain bogged down in a politically debilitating debate about tax increases.
"Our problem isn't that we tax too little. It's that we spend too much! We must have serious spending cuts for a debt ceiling increase," tweeted Rep. Tom Price., R-Ga.
That was a reference to the third ingredient under negotiation as part of deal to prevent the economy from reaching the fiscal cliff - an increase in the government's borrowing authority.
After a brush with the first-ever default by the Treasury in 2011, Obama is demanding that any fiscal cliff compromise give him authority to raise the current $16.4 trillion cap without a prior vote by Congress. Officials say that Boehner's most recent proposal would grant an increase equal to the size of any spending cuts, roughly $1 trillion under his own recommendations.
The speaker made his offer to Obama late last week, dropping his blanket opposition to the president's call for an increase in the tax rate paid on upper incomes. Obama, however, wants rate increases to begin at income levels of $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.
Officials have said Boehner offered a total of $1 trillion in higher revenue, less than half of which would come this year, and the balance in 2013 as part of a bill to overhaul the tax code.
Some of the increased revenue to be provided immediately would come from setting the tax rate on income over $1 million at 39.5 percent, up from the current 35 percent. The balance would come from higher taxes on capital gains, dividends and other provisions.
The proposal to scale back cost-of-living increases is a regular at deficit reduction talks.
Obama tentatively agreed to back it more than a year ago in talks with Boehner that eventually collapsed, although he sought steps to shelter the lowest-income beneficiaries from its effects.
Democrats have said they would object much more strongly if the president would to accept a plan to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. He was ready to embrace that proposal in the earlier round of talks, but he would face opposition from congressional Democrats and the AARP as well as other groups in the current political climate.
The new inflation adjustment would create government savings of an estimated $168 billion over a decade, according to a recent estimate by the Congressional Budget Office. It also would raise tax revenue by $54 billion by affecting the adjustment in income tax brackets that occurs annually to take inflation into account, CBO said.
___
Associated Press writers Ben Feller, Andrew Taylor and Stephen Ohlemacher contributed to this story.
On a day the two men met for about 45 minutes at the White House, officials said they detected a receptiveness by the administration side to proposals to slow the growth of annual cost-of-living benefits paid to recipients of Social Security and other government retirement programs.
If so, it would show Obama's willingness to move toward Boehner in the secretive talks that are unfolding against a year-end deadline. Without legislation to the contrary, tax rates will rise for nearly all wage earners and spending cuts will begin at the Pentagon and in domestic programs across government.
Economists inside and outside the government have warned that the combination of the two could send the economy into recession.
Other major issues are part of the negotiations. Without action by Congress, for example, long-term unemployment benefits will expire for millions at the end of the year, and doctors will face a cut in the payments they receive for treating Medicare patients.
Democrat Obama has also called for assistance for hard-pressed homeowners as well as fresh economist stimulus measures, and some Democrats want to include a sizeable amount of disaster aid in any legislation to offset the cost of Superstorm Sandy.
Officials who disclosed developments in the cliff talks insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly describe the secret negotiations.
At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney sidestepped when asked about curbing cost-of-living increases for benefit programs. The president "is prepared to make tough choices. He also understands that his bill will not, as written, likely be what the final compromise, if there is one, looks like," he said.
"But he insists and will insist before he signed anything that there is the balance that he seeks that is fair and that seniors aren't bearing the burden so that the healthy bear less - those who can afford it most bear less."
A spokesman for Boehner declined comment on the tax proposals.
Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner met with Boehner and his top aides at the White House for less than an hour during the day. While neither side provided significant details, Republicans have made it clear in recent days that it is the president's turn to propose savings from Medicare and other benefit program following Boehner's agreement last week to let tax rates rise at incomes higher than $1 million.
Officials familiar with the talks said that under the Ohio Republican's proposal, the top tax rate on capital gains would go to 20 percent, up from the current 15 percent. The top rate on dividends also would climb, although it was not known what the new level would be, and the estate tax would also be adjusted to produce more government revenue.
Under current law, the top capital gains tax rate would rise to 20 percent automatically at the end of the year if the cuts enacted during George W. Bush's White House tenure were allowed to expire.
The tax on dividends would also rise. The estate tax would be 55 percent on estates after allowance for a $1 million exemption.
As the talks progress, Republicans across the party's spectrum are eager to turn public attention toward spending cuts, rather than remain bogged down in a politically debilitating debate about tax increases.
"Our problem isn't that we tax too little. It's that we spend too much! We must have serious spending cuts for a debt ceiling increase," tweeted Rep. Tom Price., R-Ga.
That was a reference to the third ingredient under negotiation as part of deal to prevent the economy from reaching the fiscal cliff - an increase in the government's borrowing authority.
After a brush with the first-ever default by the Treasury in 2011, Obama is demanding that any fiscal cliff compromise give him authority to raise the current $16.4 trillion cap without a prior vote by Congress. Officials say that Boehner's most recent proposal would grant an increase equal to the size of any spending cuts, roughly $1 trillion under his own recommendations.
The speaker made his offer to Obama late last week, dropping his blanket opposition to the president's call for an increase in the tax rate paid on upper incomes. Obama, however, wants rate increases to begin at income levels of $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.
Officials have said Boehner offered a total of $1 trillion in higher revenue, less than half of which would come this year, and the balance in 2013 as part of a bill to overhaul the tax code.
Some of the increased revenue to be provided immediately would come from setting the tax rate on income over $1 million at 39.5 percent, up from the current 35 percent. The balance would come from higher taxes on capital gains, dividends and other provisions.
The proposal to scale back cost-of-living increases is a regular at deficit reduction talks.
Obama tentatively agreed to back it more than a year ago in talks with Boehner that eventually collapsed, although he sought steps to shelter the lowest-income beneficiaries from its effects.
Democrats have said they would object much more strongly if the president would to accept a plan to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. He was ready to embrace that proposal in the earlier round of talks, but he would face opposition from congressional Democrats and the AARP as well as other groups in the current political climate.
The new inflation adjustment would create government savings of an estimated $168 billion over a decade, according to a recent estimate by the Congressional Budget Office. It also would raise tax revenue by $54 billion by affecting the adjustment in income tax brackets that occurs annually to take inflation into account, CBO said.
___
Associated Press writers Ben Feller, Andrew Taylor and Stephen Ohlemacher contributed to this story.
No the barrowing limit should not be increased! ... they want more room to move that means they reduce spending to have a surplus effective Jan 1 2013! .... I personally do not want to hear about this mess every year with the same political pandering that is going on... yes the rates for the top should go up... no unemployment should not be EXTENDED AGAIN for those people who have been on it for three years! I'm sorry but the cash cow is going on strike! ... If you don't have the money for something you CANNOT BORROW ANYMORE .... you either have the money or not...since they seem to be on the side of NOT they GET NOTHING!
So in 10 years they are going to raise 2 trillion bucks? The interest on the National Debt for fy 2012 is $212 Billion. Times ten equals $ 2 trillion, 120 billion. That isn't counting for interest rates rising.
 The two wars have cost about $1.4 trillion. A lot of the money to pay for them was borrowed, much came from the social security fund.
More smoke and mirror economics.
Â
Â
 @rockguy I don't know about the figures, but I understand the BS is getting deep!
Anyone mention cutting the $ trillion dollar defense budget - more than the Pentagon actually asked for? We have nukes and two oceans, no one is going to invade us.
 @Sanctuary No we must keep the threats real and continue to rob, rape and pillage all American citizens along with the rest of the world.
Will this be another drama pertaining to agreement on the Fiscal Cliff..... In other words a 11th hour 59th minute 59 second deal? The suspense is killing America....
All sides working hard to kick the can down the road, what great leaders we have.
Interesting others are willing to forgo their Social Security and Medicare etc. to fund more government incompetency.... Why continue to fund the Three Branches of Oligarchy for their collective failures pertaining to "we the people" and our wishes for them to put America first? After all Foreign Policy, increased size pertaining to Bush jr's enactment of Homeland Security and war(s) on credit should've been more than enough to disband the cancerous government.
Is this sort of like the movement we see in middle east peace talks?
We are closing in on the time when Obama folds in all his negotiations and gives away SSI and Medicare.
 @T_BONE_WALKER Not sure what you mean by "give away," but if those are NOT addressed sometime soon, they WILL bankrupt the nation, so fixing them would be a good thing. And by "fixing" I mean reducing their cost to taxpayers.
 @RN1  @T_BONE_WALKER Social security is not part of the budget deficit and has its own funding. It will not run out of money, but if not properly maintained people will receive less $$.
 @Sanctuary  @T_BONE_WALKER The "trust fund" has been spent, and replaced with IOUs known as US Treasury notes. It is now running cash-flow-negative, so those IOUs are being redeemed. Because Uncle Sam doesn't have cash on hand, it issues to the general bond-buying community new bonds to raise the cash to pay off the "trust fund" bonds. The NEW bonds are added to the deficit for the year, and hence the debt.
Â
In roughly 2017, the "trust fund" will be gone, and by law the payouts will then drop to whatever level is supported by current revenue from the SS payroll tax. Current projects put that at a drop of somewhere between a quarter and a third from current levels. So, either payroll taxes then jump to cover the shortfall (which will SERIOUSLY piss off current workers), or a LOT of seniors are going to be VERY bent.
Â
Either way, there is going to be a LOT of turnover in congress shortly thereafter, as the reality sets in.
Only if we can cut funding to Obama care by 99.99% then I would be happy
@wynooheeman ahhhhhhâ¦â¦ I will continue to enjoy life that much more and continue to sleep that much better knowing that you will not be happy for a long long time, if ever. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
 @flyskiwindsurf People hate what they don't understand.Â
@RN1 You are painting with a pretty broad brush as well as making a lot of extrapolations and assumptions there. In both sentences. And you should already know what that makes only you. By the way. There are already regulations on both/all. The debate could really be about where in the spectrum those regulations should actually be at. Or not.
 @lakeview  @flyskiwindsurf Maybe that's why the left hates capitalism and gun rights so much.
Â
Of course, there are also a lot of people who love what they *don't* understand, which would explain their infatuation with Obama and the ACA.
@Funky-Munky Congress has a lot more power than a lot of people seem to believe that they have. However for quite a while now they have been squandering a lot of it with their continual squabbling, bickering, and just fighting in general. Although that is also power in a way. And way back when the congress was lied to about: 1) the costs of Medicare Part D; 2) the wars; 3) many of the reasons for at least one war, 4) and who knows what else. The POTUS does have quite a bit of power but congress usually has to start something before the POTUS can sign off, or not, on it. Thus he might have less power than a lot of people seem to believe that he has. And even some of the things that the POTUS can instigate, the congress or even the SCOTUS could theoretically eventually nullify. And of course the SCOTUS in a lot of respects has some ultimate power to accept/reject but it can take years or even much longer, obviously, to get there.
 @the unvarnished truth Romney's economic plan would have created even MORE debt over the long run. Every independent analysis concluded that Romney's mix of tax cuts and military spending increases would have accelerated our debt long term, not cut it.Â
Â
And that's why he lost. No reasonable person who cares about our debt could vote for him. He was promising the magic bean economics. Been there done that.Â
 @the unvarnished truth There was no other choice....... In my eyes... it was between Robme or Obama.... Obama will slowly bring America down.... Robme would've been a rocket ship ride to Hell in a hurry.
 @flyskiwindsurf My complaint........ Congress had the power to stop all of it and more.... that's why I refuse to accept the Three Branches of Oligarchy. I renounce them all.....
@Funky-Munky I am not exactly sure but I am a little more optimistic than that. I.e. hope for the best but plan for the worst. But we all will eventually have to pay for the two unfunded and overpriced: 1) wars; 2) Medicare Part D; 3) who knows what else and 4) the interest on all of that and even more. I believe W, Cheney, and Paulson were trying very very hard to prolong the start of the Great Recession as long as possible/into the next personâs term but it just got so bad that they could no longer hold any of it back.
 @flyskiwindsurf Gasp.... I hope I am wrong and my tinfoil hat is on too tight... Ha! :D)
 @flyskiwindsurf I think we all are heading for a brick wall fast.... I also believe the Fiscal Cliff is only a point of reference America already went over years back. We're all getting ready to pay the piper next year... Strange how our government prolonged the inevitable to coincide with next year...
@Funky-Munky We are still dealing with at least a partially lame duck congress and he is still serving out his first term. He has yet to be sworn into his second term.
 @flyskiwindsurf Sad.... I voted for Obama twice, but I would've liked another choice in the matter. I am trying to remain optimistic about Obama, but I am not liking what I see so far.
@Funky-Munky They are all trying to hold on to as much as possible but we may see at least a few nicks, if not even a little crumbling, in all of them shortly. At least for a little while.
@Funky-Munky Yeah there is probably always around 25% of any electorate that is just bat azz crazy. That has been demonstrated numerous times throughout history.
 @flyskiwindsurf I think you know I am 100% against all Three Branches of Oligarchy.... I don't discriminate...... I dislike all of them....
 @flyskiwindsurf Oops.... I mean 99.9% of those who "hate" blindly Obama....... Most everyone else is waiting to see more of what Obama is trying to accomplish....
@Funky-Munky Well yeah there is all of that but is it really 99.9%. I.e. anyone checked the last major polls, including the last major election? Anyone checked any of the major polls (including the last major election) for the Senate, the H.R., the Republicans in the H.R., etc.?
 @flyskiwindsurf I believe 99.9% "hate" Obama because he's a black socialist in their eyes..... two strikes... Black..... Socialist.... (jeepers)
@lakeview Thatâs true that is one of the reasons that they hate and that particular loony boy does not understand very much at all because he seems to hate nearly everything.
Movement? You surely mean "caving"!! Boehner needs to GO!!
I'm still waiting for crybaby to explain how higher taxes on investment income for individuals (not wages, mind you, that is an issue for people who WORK) would hurt small businesses. Would they reduce the housekeeping staff? I'm fascinated to have the logic explained on this one.
 @PilonidalCyst Simple example: My parents are retired, but they are NOT wealthy. The majority of their savings are in the form of dividend-paying stocks. If their dividends are taxed at a higher rate, their portfolio value falls, AND they have less income and cannot continue to afford their current accommodations and spending habits. They will likely have to move somewhere cheaper, eat out less, buy fewer presents for the grand-kids, go out to play or concerts less, and patronize small local businesses less.
Â
Long story short, penalizing savers will put them in the poorhouse (or, more likely, downstairs). Every small business that depends on the spending of folks like them will get hit hard.
@PilonidalCyst Ok lets double tax you. lets tax your savings money the interest that you earn every year on your savings hell you don't need it. your being greedy wanting to keep that money.