Obama says immediate action needed on fiscal cliff
»Play Video
WASHINGTON (AP) - The end game at hand, the White House and Senate leaders took a final stab at compromise Friday night to prevent middle-class tax increases from taking effect at the turn of the new year and possibly prevent sweeping spending cuts as well.
"I'm optimistic we may still be able to reach an agreement that can pass both houses in time," President Barack Obama said at the White House after meeting for more than an hour with congressional leaders.
Surprisingly, after weeks of postelection gridlock, Senate leaders sounded even more bullish.
The Republican Leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said he was "hopeful and optimistic" of a deal, adding he hoped a compromise could be presented to rank-and-file lawmakers as early as Sunday, a little more than 24 hours before the year-end deadline.
Said Majority Leader Harry Reid: "I'm going to do everything I can" to prevent the tax increases and spending cuts that threaten to send the economy into recession. He cautioned, "Whatever we come up with is going to be imperfect."
Officials said there was a general understanding that any agreement would block scheduled income tax increases for middle class earners while letting rates rise at upper income levels.
Democrats said Obama was sticking to his campaign call for increases above $250,000 in annual income, even though in recent negotiations he said he could accept $400,000.
The two sides also confronted a divide over estate taxes.
Obama favors a higher tax than is currently in effect, but one senior Republican, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, said he's "totally dead set" against it. Speaking of fellow GOP lawmakers, he said they harbor more opposition to an increase in the estate tax than to letting taxes on income and investments rise at upper levels.
Also likely to be included in the negotiations are taxes on dividends and capital gains, both of which are scheduled to rise with the new year. Also the alternative minimum tax, which, if left unchanged, could hit millions of middle- and upper-income taxpayers for the first time.
In addition, Obama and Democrats want to prevent the expiration of unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless, and there is widespread sentiment in both parties to shelter doctors from a cut in Medicare fees.
The White House has shown increased concern about a possible spike in milk prices if a farm bill is not passed in the next few days, although it is not clear whether that issue, too, might be included in the talks.
One Republican who was briefed on the White House meeting said Boehner made it clear he would leave in place spending cuts scheduled to take effect unless alternative savings were found to offset them. If he prevails, that would defer politically difficult decisions on government benefit programs like Medicare until 2013.
Success was far from guaranteed in an atmosphere of political mistrust - even on a slimmed-down deal that postponed hard decisions about spending cuts into 2013 - in a Capitol where lawmakers grumbled about the likelihood of spending the new year holiday working.
In a brief appearance in the White House briefing room, Obama referred to "dysfunction in Washington," and said the American public is "not going to have any patience for a politically self-inflicted wound to our economy. Not right now."
If there is no compromise, he said he expects Reid to put legislation on the floor to prevent tax increases on the middle class and extend unemployment benefits - an implicit challenge to Republicans to dare to vote against what polls show is popular.
The guest list for the White House meeting included Reid, McConnell, Boehner and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
The same group last met more than a month ago and emerged expressing optimism they could strike a deal that avoided the fiscal cliff. At that point, Boehner had already said he was willing to let tax revenues rise as part of an agreement, and the president and his Democratic allies said they were ready to accept spending cuts.
Since then, though, talks between Obama and Boehner faltered, the speaker struggled to control his rebellious rank and file, and Reid and McConnell sparred almost daily in speeches on the Senate floor. Through it all, Wall Street has paid close attention, and in the moments before the meeting, stocks were trading lower for the fifth day in a row.
The core issue is the same as it has been for more than a year, Obama's demand for tax rates to rise on upper incomes while remaining at current levels for most Americans. He made the proposal central to his successful campaign for re-election, when he said incomes above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples should rise to 39.6 percent from the current 35 percent.
Boehner refused for weeks to accept any rate increases, and simultaneously accused Obama of skimping on the spending cuts he would support as part of a balanced deal to reduce deficits, remove the threat of spending cuts and prevent the across-the-board tax cuts.
Last week, the Ohio Republican pivoted and presented a Plan B measure that would have let rates rise on million-dollar earners. That was well above Obama's latest offer, which called for a $400,000 threshold, but more than the speaker's rank and file were willing to accept.
Facing defeat, Boehner scrapped plans for a vote, leaving the economy on track for the cliff that political leaders in both parties had said they could avoid. In the aftermath, Democrats said they doubted any compromise was possible until Boehner has been elected to a second term as speaker when the new Congress convenes on Jan. 3.
Further compounding the year-end maneuvering, there are warnings that the price of milk could virtually double beginning next year.
Congressional officials said that under current law, the federal government is obligated to maintain prices so that fluid milk sells for about $20 per hundredweight. If the law lapses, the Department of Agriculture would be required to maintain a price closer to $36 of $38 per hundredweight, they said. It is unclear when price increases might be felt by consumers.
"I'm optimistic we may still be able to reach an agreement that can pass both houses in time," President Barack Obama said at the White House after meeting for more than an hour with congressional leaders.
Surprisingly, after weeks of postelection gridlock, Senate leaders sounded even more bullish.
The Republican Leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said he was "hopeful and optimistic" of a deal, adding he hoped a compromise could be presented to rank-and-file lawmakers as early as Sunday, a little more than 24 hours before the year-end deadline.
Said Majority Leader Harry Reid: "I'm going to do everything I can" to prevent the tax increases and spending cuts that threaten to send the economy into recession. He cautioned, "Whatever we come up with is going to be imperfect."
Officials said there was a general understanding that any agreement would block scheduled income tax increases for middle class earners while letting rates rise at upper income levels.
Democrats said Obama was sticking to his campaign call for increases above $250,000 in annual income, even though in recent negotiations he said he could accept $400,000.
The two sides also confronted a divide over estate taxes.
Obama favors a higher tax than is currently in effect, but one senior Republican, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, said he's "totally dead set" against it. Speaking of fellow GOP lawmakers, he said they harbor more opposition to an increase in the estate tax than to letting taxes on income and investments rise at upper levels.
Also likely to be included in the negotiations are taxes on dividends and capital gains, both of which are scheduled to rise with the new year. Also the alternative minimum tax, which, if left unchanged, could hit millions of middle- and upper-income taxpayers for the first time.
In addition, Obama and Democrats want to prevent the expiration of unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless, and there is widespread sentiment in both parties to shelter doctors from a cut in Medicare fees.
The White House has shown increased concern about a possible spike in milk prices if a farm bill is not passed in the next few days, although it is not clear whether that issue, too, might be included in the talks.
One Republican who was briefed on the White House meeting said Boehner made it clear he would leave in place spending cuts scheduled to take effect unless alternative savings were found to offset them. If he prevails, that would defer politically difficult decisions on government benefit programs like Medicare until 2013.
Success was far from guaranteed in an atmosphere of political mistrust - even on a slimmed-down deal that postponed hard decisions about spending cuts into 2013 - in a Capitol where lawmakers grumbled about the likelihood of spending the new year holiday working.
In a brief appearance in the White House briefing room, Obama referred to "dysfunction in Washington," and said the American public is "not going to have any patience for a politically self-inflicted wound to our economy. Not right now."
If there is no compromise, he said he expects Reid to put legislation on the floor to prevent tax increases on the middle class and extend unemployment benefits - an implicit challenge to Republicans to dare to vote against what polls show is popular.
The guest list for the White House meeting included Reid, McConnell, Boehner and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
The same group last met more than a month ago and emerged expressing optimism they could strike a deal that avoided the fiscal cliff. At that point, Boehner had already said he was willing to let tax revenues rise as part of an agreement, and the president and his Democratic allies said they were ready to accept spending cuts.
Since then, though, talks between Obama and Boehner faltered, the speaker struggled to control his rebellious rank and file, and Reid and McConnell sparred almost daily in speeches on the Senate floor. Through it all, Wall Street has paid close attention, and in the moments before the meeting, stocks were trading lower for the fifth day in a row.
The core issue is the same as it has been for more than a year, Obama's demand for tax rates to rise on upper incomes while remaining at current levels for most Americans. He made the proposal central to his successful campaign for re-election, when he said incomes above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples should rise to 39.6 percent from the current 35 percent.
Boehner refused for weeks to accept any rate increases, and simultaneously accused Obama of skimping on the spending cuts he would support as part of a balanced deal to reduce deficits, remove the threat of spending cuts and prevent the across-the-board tax cuts.
Last week, the Ohio Republican pivoted and presented a Plan B measure that would have let rates rise on million-dollar earners. That was well above Obama's latest offer, which called for a $400,000 threshold, but more than the speaker's rank and file were willing to accept.
Facing defeat, Boehner scrapped plans for a vote, leaving the economy on track for the cliff that political leaders in both parties had said they could avoid. In the aftermath, Democrats said they doubted any compromise was possible until Boehner has been elected to a second term as speaker when the new Congress convenes on Jan. 3.
Further compounding the year-end maneuvering, there are warnings that the price of milk could virtually double beginning next year.
Congressional officials said that under current law, the federal government is obligated to maintain prices so that fluid milk sells for about $20 per hundredweight. If the law lapses, the Department of Agriculture would be required to maintain a price closer to $36 of $38 per hundredweight, they said. It is unclear when price increases might be felt by consumers.
I wish we had a President like Clinton or Reagan back. Â A real leader. Â They were Presidents that could cajole, twist arms, and knew the are of compromising.
Â
Dividing Americans and bad mouthing others - it's just not the mark of a Leader.  It's unbecoming of an American President.
Glad to see gridlock back. Hasn't been enough of that this term. They did pull together long enough to violate our civil liberties again by passing the latest spy on our citizens bill. Just let the sequestration happen and lets start getting the budget in order.
Do the public realize 50% of the Senate are millionaires. Most are 60+ in age with the oldest (2) are 88. We elect these people into office. Some have been there 35 plus years. They are the ones putting the middle class americans in this position. Next time you vote remember this. If I were a millionaire I would be looking out for myself and my rich friends!
 @DeeDee Yes,people keep voting fro the same person over and over  . Totally expecting a different result.  the true definition of insanity.  look at WA.state. When was the last time someone else got voted into office,even better a different party ? We need term limits. the elected elite are so far out of touch with their constituency it is pathetic.Â
REPUBLICAN John Boehner is to blame for all of this and REPUBLICANS will pay. They are recklessly toying with our country and the middle class will be paying for everything. Wait and see. These are very bad people.
 @teahater Amen!
Â
 @teahater Mr.teahater,tell me why the group who pays over 37% of all federal income taxes should pay a bigger burden ?  Whatever your situation there are some not so fortunate . Isn't then "fair' for you to pay them.  The one to blame is Obama,he doesn't want a deal. he knows in order to keep paying for his social programs taxes have to go up on all.  no matter what deal is made,taxes are going up on everyone on JAN. 1 due to Obama care. So keep blaming some else for what you voted for.
Today the top 1 percent of Americans control 45 percent of the financial wealth while the bottom 80 percent control only 7. Trickledown economics, the cornerstone of REPUBLICAN economic theory is responsible for this. Letâs face it government economic policy focuses on making the rich richer. Problem is things "trickle down" but not at an equal rate. Supply siders say, "A rising tide lifts all boats" and it has certainly lifted a lot of yachts, but at the same time it has left most of the row boats stuck in the mud. This has been going on for 30 years.
Â
Also, my comments are not regarding the dollars, we must ultimately pay for what we want/spend, be it entitlements to tax cuts to whatever.  I want Obama care, more than I want tax cuts for the top 4% of American wealthiest. I don't want to pay higher taxes or lose my mortgage write-off so I can't afford to buy my home.  My understanding is that most others in America agree...as far as I can see from the election results that is.
Â
An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year is not going to do well over the long haul...
Â
Also, REPUBLICANS have no intention of raising taxes on the wealthy if Obama drops Obama care. Why does this keep popping up as a compromise when it's not negotiable.
Â
Are you beginning to see that you are also a victim here?
Â
@Maynard G Krebbs @teahater actually by the Constitution it is the spinsibility of the House to present the budget. The president simply needs to sign it...or not. In reality the rich do need to pay more as does everyone else. When you have half the nation paying nothing and spending isn't cut to match the lowered income then you will have problems.
It's obvious the Three Branches of Government is planning on continuing robbing, raping and plundering citizens across the nation for their collaborated failures. Why continue to fund the very people who sold America out?
The objective of Progressive Democrats is to blame Republicans for their taxes going up. This is a no win situation. As on JAN. 1 Obama care taxes kick in on everyone. Â I would like to see "over the cliff" ,then Obama voters will have to start paying for what they voted for.Â
 Think about this "middle class" progressives. you have a job,home,cars ,family. How much are you willing to give to someone that has none of this ?  That is exactly what you want ! tax people that have more than me,but not me. Well there are people out there who don't have what you do,so pay.
I am wondering why our president signed an executive order this week authorizing pay raises for Biden and other congressional offices then?????????
 @newcastlegirl Because it's not about you.
 @newcastlegirl It's amazing Americans are allowing the continued theft, mismanagement and misspent taxpayer money to continue funding a 100% corrupt government. sad. :(
$200K = millionaire, liberal logic.Â
@GeorgeG. My income 100k, my tax rate 22%, Mitt Romney income 15 million and a tax rate of 13.1%.... Is that your idea of fair?
 @DeadRabitz You do understand the difference between earned income and investment income don't you?
@al_wa Oh I understand the risk involved however, he only pays taxes on the profit. Secondly that is what he chooses to do with his money, it should be taxed at the same rate as normal employment. After all he isn't taxed on a loss and gets to claim those losses on his taxes.
 @DeadRabitz  @al_waÂ
Exactly. That is why it is called an investment it has risk of losing money that you have already paid taxes. On the other hand if you go to work, do your job collect your wages you have no risk.
Â
Â
Â
@al_wa how can you know what he paid, he never released those tax figures? I only reference the ones he released. Lets not kid ourselves here. The wealthy have been paying less through loopholes and such for a long long time under the misguided idea that they would somehow put that extra money back into the economy. Except we know this to be false. No business owner will put money into a project unless they are fairly certain of making a profit on their investment.
 @DeadRabitz  @al_wa He paid a much higher rate than 13% on the money he invested. The idea of a tax beak on investment is to promote economic growth which create wealth and jobs. Investment carries a risk of losing as well as gaining.
@al_wa @DeadRabitz I do. I understand that he is earning income form his past investments. However he had to work for that investment just as I work for my income so why have a legal disparity between the two?
In a related article, Obama is quoted as saying "I won't compromise" on taxes. OK, then there should be some pretty hefty budget cuts to go along with it, and a plan that cuts the deficit, while still incentivizing business. Otherwise, fine, let's go "over the cliff" and see what that does for your party, Mr. President. You just can't go on running up the deficit like we are- that should be the main point being talked about. Times are going to be tough- I see no way around it. People need to get used to the idea that they are going to have to make do with less, and work for what you get. The free ride is over. That should be the other main thing being discussed, but they are politicians- who am I kidding.
@Scoondog he is going to his budget cuts and higher income because that is what the "fiscal cliff" actually is. It simply makes the hard cuts and raises taxes back to what we had before Bush.
 @DeadRabitz  @Scoondog I understand that. Frankly, I think that may well be what's needed. My point is, jobs come from the private sector. If we go over the cliff, businesses will suffer. If businesses suffer, unemployment will go higher. If unemployment goes higher, we will have a republican president, house, and congress in 4 more years.
@Scoondog and how do you know this. Please show me how you figure this?
 @DeadRabitz  @Scoondog Any tax benefits will be minimal compared with out of pocket costs for businesses. This I know.
@Scoondog for one, I love Obamacare. I have been a medical professional for many many years both in the army and outside. For all the costs of the plan it will same us more than doing nothing and it is more the regulation of insurance. The main thing that it does. Is gets rid of the preexisting conditions clause, a clause that would prevent my child from having the proper medial care and medical equipment (BKE amputee). Once I leave the military, insurance companies would have been able to refuse to cover her because it was preexisting to them. They would cover new issues but not old ones. Yes, it may cost a little more. However many employers are overstating the costs as a way to kill the law. The Government has set up very very nice tax benefits for employers who provide healthcare.
 @DeadRabitz  @Scoondog Points taken, and THANK YOU for your military service. That said, incumbency is the scurge of government- you may well be right that it will be hard for GOP to gain control of Senate. But still, Obama was elected on this ideology of "hope and change". He will have had 8 years to show us what exactly that means. So far, I'm not seeing it- all I see is huge govenrnment spending getting huger- mainly Obamacare, which by the way will rock the budgets of small businesses who provide health care to employees. I can tell you first hand that Obamacare expenses will have a direct adverse affect to employees where I work.
@Scoondog first, I highly doubt your prediction. Incumbency is very high. Secondly not all jobs are from the private sector. I am a federal employee (Army). As an employer, the federal government is pretty big. In 2010 the federal employment roster held at about 4.4 million people. Which by the way is down from its high in 1968 of 6.6 million. I think that many people still blame the GOP for the finacial meltdown and now Boehner isn't doing them any favors.
@Scoondog OK Scoonie...Let's see if you were unemployed and then your fellow GOPers cut off your unemployment checks...Tsk Tsk just more freeloaders...
 @clem77  @Scoondog For starters, I wouldn't be unemployed- don't believe in it. I'd rather work my way up to store manager at McDonald's than count on other people to pay my way. Let' s take being unemployed out of the conversation. If you are unemployed, look in the mirror and ask why, then fix it.
 @clem77  @Scoondog Do you pay taxes on your unemployment ? yes you do. So why shouldn't others who pay no federal income tax pay something  ? People on Social security pay federal income tax,why shouldn't others ?Â
"Obama says immediate action needed on fiscal cliff." Thanks for that observation "Capt. Obvious!"
@cawlnaduckaduck he isn't the one who is supposed to take the action...you know that right?
Anybody sick of the term "Fiscal Cliff" yet? The media invented this term and has now beat the dead horse to a bloody pulp. I was talking with my financial advisor today and he just snickered at the mention of this hype. He agrees that, yes, there are problems to fix and, yes, we need to fix them, but the news media has so totally overblown this one. It's pretty pathetic that they can't just give it to us straight without having to add the fear factor to sell a story.
 @Whoanelly So you blame this scam that ultimately allows Obama to give away your SSI and Medicare to the rich to be privatized and stolen on the media? Good, thats what he was hoping for.
Â
Why does "Capitulater in Chief" keep offering it up when the gop has no leverage? The only thing happening here is more of the same old transfer of wealth upwards to the rich that has been going on for years now and SSI and medicare account for the last 2 piles of money in this country and since its a tax and the rich cant touch it til its privatized, it will be.
Â
Then you and nelly can eat rocks and ponder who really wins in deregulated predatory capitalism and who loses. 10 or 15 of you can probably go in together on buying a shovel to bury your starved dead children but, buy a good one that will last with plenty of use like the old made in the USA stuff did because you'll need a good one.
Â
You dems might just as well forget getting any help from your hero, he is further right wing then Geo Bush and a better liar also. He coulda done everything you wanted during the first term while he had a majority but chose not to fight for one thing he promised you in his first campaign, then you vote him back in when he is a lame duck without a majority.
Â
Good Luck out there and, I am pulling for you morons! Let me know when you dumb asses want to take your country back away from the criminals that you've allowed to destroy it.
@T_BONE_WALKER @Whoanelly I really think you need more meds.
Ludicrous. They had a "special committee" that was supposed to work out a budget deal with the fiscal cliff a year out as incentive to get it addressed by then. Instead of sequestering the clowns and cutting them off from their party leadership; they conferred with them on a moment by moment basis. BO didnât have the balls to âlockâ them up without outside interference. (Yes he could lock them in do to do government business; Constitution only states one can not detain them from attending to government business)  So they pissed it away. Now they want everyone to get excited about the âend is nearâ syndrome. Might as well deal with it and suck it up. They managed to keep consumer confidence high enough to avoid a full blown depression, but the recession didnât cause enough of re-alignment. As always, it is a matter of making the other guy (Gal) look bad and keep getting re-elected.
We are "going over the cliff" anyway - it is a matter of time.  this bubble of uncontrolled spending is set to burst.   Lets jump the cliff and get it over with - at least then we can start to pick up the pieces.   Â
@jennieb Agreed. It's going to hurt my family bad, but it's worth it to get spending under control. I was amazed there is still no plan to curtail the unemployment benifits.
 @whatifafrog How about a plan to create jobs? A job will put a quick stop to a person's unemployment benefits.Â
Talk about dysfunctional.Â
to all the idiots in washington DC cut the budget leave the taxes the way they are.
cut welfare and do audits of everyone on food stamps, section 8 afdc,and every other program, cut everything to illegals they are not entilted, consolidate depts, cut the levels of management, fix medicare and social security instead of kicking the can down the road becouse that road is getting shorter medicare broke 2024 and ssi 2034
audit every dept
no more vacations until you fix it its your dam jobs
Ha! Ha!
Maybe a budget being passed three years ago would have helped. I'm just sayin
Oh and two years ago
and one year ago
How can we expect any change in the way things are being done? The same people were just reelected a month ago and haven't even started the new term and already it's back to business as usual. We had 4 years of this to see what would change and nothing has so I guess we as voters only have ourselves to blame. This past election was an opportunity to send a very strong message to our government and we didn't.
I love it when the tea party folks are whining.
 @Fred Mulligan so you pretty much "love it" all the time I see