"Fiscal cliff" talks frozen, Obama lobbies big business

President Barack Obama is introduced by Jim McNerney, chief executive officer of The Boeing Company, before speaking about the fiscal cliff during an addresses before the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers, Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012, in Washington. / AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

Updated: 5:30 p.m. ET

With talks between the White House and Congress over a deal to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff" all but frozen, President Obama today turned his focus to the business community, urging attendees at the quarterly meeting of the Business Roundtable to help him lobby Congress for a "balanced" deal that includes tax hikes for the nation's wealthiest earners.

So far, there's little reason to believe a deal is in the works: In recent days, the White House and House Speaker John Boehner each offered up plans reflective of their party's ideologies, both of which were swiftly rejected by the other side. An aide to Boehner confirmed to CBS News that the president and the speaker talked on the phone this afternoon, though the aide did not provide any details as to what was said on the call.

Mr. Obama, who has recently redoubled his efforts to rebuild a strong relationship with the business world after years of tension, remains locked in a stalemate with House Republican leaders over averting the so-called "cliff," a series of tax hikes and spending cuts set to go into effect next year. The president insists he will not sign off on a proposal that does not increase tax rates for households earning $250,000 or more per year, while Republicans have repeatedly reiterated their refusal to raise tax rates.

Play Video

Obama: We can solve "fiscal cliff" in a week - "It's not that tough"

In his remarks today, Mr. Obama attempted to win the Business Roundtable to his side of the political argument, outlining his opposition to the GOP proposal and essentially accusing Republicans of holding the global economy hostage.

"I am passionately rooting for your success, because if the companies in this room are doing well, then small businesses and medium-sized businesses up and down the chain are doing well," he said. "Obviously the global economy is still soft. Europe is going to be in the doldrums for quite some time... Everybody's looking to America because they understand that if we're able to put forward a long-term agenda for growth and prosperity that's broad based here in the U.S., that confidence will increase not just here in the U.S. but will increase globally."

But, he argued, "what's holding us back [from that goal] right now, ironically, is a lot of stuff that is going on in this town. And I know that many of you have come down here to try to see, is there a way that we can break through that logjam."

"Nobody wants to get this done more than me," he said.

• On "fiscal cliff", Obama appeals to former foes
• House GOP "fiscal cliff" offer incites conservative ire

The president went on to outline his objections to the GOP plan, which proposes to raise revenue by eliminating unspecified tax loopholes and deductions.

"We don't have any objection to tax reform, tax simplification, closing loopholes, closing deductions. But there is a bottom line amount of revenue that is required in order for us to get a real, meaningful deficit reduction plan that hits the numbers that are required," he said. "Any formula that says we can't increase tax rates probably only yields about $300-400 billion realistically, and that's well short of the amount of revenue that's needed for a balanced package."

Mr. Obama's most recent proposal to stave off the "fiscal cliff" calls for $1.6 trillion in new revenues, achieved in part by letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans, as well as $600 billion in spending cuts and a handful of other measures. The Republican offer put forward a counter offer that is made up of $900 billion in spending cuts and $800 billion in new revenues achieved through tax reform that preclude rate increases.

"Speaker Boehner took a position I think the day after the campaign that said, we're willing to bring in new revenue but we're not willing to increase rates. And I've just explained to you why we don't think that works," Mr. Obama said. "We're not insisting on rates just out of spite or out of any kind of partisan bickering, but rather because we need to raise a certain amount of revenue."

The president also warned Republicans against embracing a plan to use a February battle over the debt limit to get their way on tax rates. "That's not a game that I will play," he said.

Play Video

Obama, GOP still stagnant on "fiscal cliff"

Even as Democrats ramp up pressure on Boehner to accept a deal including tax hikes, however, the speaker has so far shown few outward indications that he's willing to defy the conservative wing of his caucus, particularly amid conservative criticisms of the plan he did offer up.

Boehner reiterated his call today for the president to officially respond to his proposal, and dismissed the notion that Mr. Obama's re-election serves as a mandate on raising tax rates.

"If the president doesn't like our offer, he has a responsibility to put forward a plan that can pass both chambers of Congress. We're ready to talk with the president immediately about a plan that can pass this chamber. We're ready any time he is," he said. "We can't... negotiate with ourselves."

The Ohio Republican defended his plan to increase revenue by closing tax loopholes and deductions, which Democrats have targeted as, among other things, a way to get around raising rates for the wealthy.

"The revenues we are putting on the table are going to come from, guess who? The rich," said Boehner. "There are ways to limit reductions, close loopholes and have the same people pay more of their money to the federal government without raising taxes, which we believe will harm the economy."

Boehner did not, however, provide further details on which loopholes and deductions would be closed, nor did he say how such closures would add up to the amount of revenue increases for which the president is calling.

In the meantime, House Democrats continue to push Republicans to agree to decouple the middle-income Bush-era tax cuts from the high-income cuts so that low rates for all Americans aren't held "hostage" in the fight over rates for the top two percent of earners.

"A good first step would be to pass the middle income tax cut," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters today. "If we can take the middle income tax cuts off the table, then we have ended the hostage-taking that Republicans have been engaged in."

But House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., answered Pelosi's cry with a firm reiteration of the party line.

"An obsession to raising taxes isn't going to solve the problem," he told reporters today. "We can't just keep borrowing money and raising taxes and expecting the problem to go away. That is our point to the president."

[AlexWolfNYC]

@ ROLLOTHENORMAN

AlexWolfNYC says:

"Were you to tax the top 1% of individual earners in 2011 (the most recent year with data fully available) at 100% you would have brought in US$ 700 billion. Yet we had a budget deficit in that year of well over a trillion. Doesn't solve the problem."

ROLLOTHENORMAN says: yeah it would, over 10 years, which is the time period we're talking about, it would bring in (10 x 700B)7 Trillion. Problem solved! You Fox fans should really not try to do math at home.

And you MSNBC fans shouldn't talk about numbers when you forget (from the above) that this WONDERFUL administration is still running at a US$ 300 to 600 BILLION defecit even under the whole premise.

And that is assuming the "rich" pay zero and the full $ 700b is realized in the existing, real, $ 300 - 600 billion annual defecit this wonderful administration has run over the last few years. (Just giving you and your argument the widest berth for YOUR benefit - of course if the "rich" pay now, the additional $ 700b is MUCH MUCH less and the figures below are worse)

By that math, the deficit would still be 300 billion x 10 years (your timeframe) or another . . . . 3 TRILLION in debt.

But don't hurt yourself ROLLOTHENORMAN . . . . I get that numbers aren't your thing.

It certainly explains your vote in the last election.

[RollotheNorman]

Same old numbskull, confabulating the deficit with the debt. Actually the Obama has had the least rate of increase in the deficit in 60 years. You little RepubliCON loonies didn't like it when Clinton actually had a balanced budget. Dubya's administration actually claimed it was bad economics to pay off the national debt. I guess you're disagreeing with you distinguished RepubliCON predecessors, eh? I also remember the Tea Party types coming up with the cry "It's our money, Washington is overtaxing us, give to us." That was the great Dubya talking point to hurry the tax cuts along, and now you don't like the result. Whine, whine, whine, no wonder RepubliCONs are becoming extent.

As for the 3T added to national debt over the next 10, the RepubliCONs were ready to make a "grand bargin" for 4T and call it done, with resulting hoopla accompanying.

Naw math hasn't been that hard for me. I went through the Calculus and about 15 hours of stats for my Bachelors and another 30 hours of Stats and research design in grad school.
You Tea Bagger loons can forget your save the rich program, we just had an election that said pretty conclusively, it's not going to fly.

[RollotheNorman]

...RepubliCONs are becoming extinct....

[TimeToEvolve]

This fiscal "cliff"is a bi-partisan agreement from last year. We have to accept reality and understand our Congress does not represent the 99%. Sad but true.

[darkhorseky]

This is more smoke from the Prisedent,
Iam Rep and wish they would just do it. Raise the tax on the Higher earners. But if i can say? Britan tired this sevarl years ago and guess what? Didn't really matter since the rich just took thier money somewhere else. Also as everyone knows most of Hollywood don't have thier money here either. So really , the middle class or golry hole for Obama tax collection will lose. Folks , there is no fairy tale. It's going to end up taking form middle class and robbing from the old.

[ajain31]

President Barack Obama won the elections in 2008 and 2012 based on his campaign to raise taxes on people making above $200,000.00 or family above $250,000.00. The people have spoken in great numbers to validate President Obama's proposition on taxes.

Representative Paul Ryan and his budgetary ideas were soundly rejected by the 2012 electorate and the Republican House of Representatives must heed to the voice of the nation. Otherwise Republicans are destined to loose the Presidency every four years till Texas turns blue and then the Presidency will be out of the reach of the Republicans for a very long time to come!

If the Republicans want to wash their hands off the "Makers & Takers" philosophy of Mitt Romney then the Fiscal Cliff is their chance to support not cutting into Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and keep the masses in the nation from going permanently in the Democratic camp.

If Republicans want to defeat the 47% philosophy of Mitt Romney forever and join the nation in the quest to support the middle class thus ending the class warfare which Republicans are loosing, 2012 election being their latest proof Republicans should come to their senses and give up their support of Paul Ryan's agenda of cutting into Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid Paul Ryan's budgetary philosophy has met its fate at the polls this November and Republicans must start anew supporting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid rather than cutting them.

If House Republicans do not support and pass the Senate bill supporting cutting taxes on the 98% people and 97% small businesses instead let the nation fall off the Fiscal Cliff for the sake of saving the top 2% tax breaks then the nation will punish the House Republicans in 2014 and they will loose the only branch of Congress they now hold.

Republicans ought to learn from the adage that "A bird in hand is better than two in the bush". A Republican House is better than dreaming a defeated Obama or a blue Senate in the near future. Remember Obama now is only five votes short in the new Senate to thwarting a Republican filibuster rules governing which will be modified by the Senate majority leader on the first day of the 2013 session.
So let the 2012 election results be a forewarning to any Republican scheme to cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to the bone and then expecting to win the ONLY voters thay are left with i.e. the White elderly voters!

From hereon let it be a lesson to all aspiring Republican Presidential candidates that the Demographic clock is ticking and it does not favor the Republicans if Texas turns blue!! There are only so many election cycles before that may happen unless Republicans change their ways and tax the 2% rich at Clinton rates and avoid cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid!

Take this from a life long Democrat who voted twice for Ronald Reagan and was not a very proud Reagan Democrat but still loved Reagan. I have been a proud Texan since 1990 and can vouch that Texas is on its way to becoming a blue state unless Republicans discover another Reagan among themselves which is difficult in the Ted Cruz and TEA Party era of 2012 and beyond!!

[OJimi]

Boehner says:
increasing taxes on the rich through rate hikes will hurt the economy.
increasing taxes on the rich through eliminating loop holes and deduction won't.

He needs to explain that.

[Lindag20]

Obviously the ONLY loopholes that would be closed would be ones that DIDN'T impact the rich. Congress would NEVER allow anything to cost their rich masters a dime.

[inketolstoy]

I am passionately rooting for your success, because if the companies in this room are doing well, then small businesses and medium-sized businesses up and down the chain are doing well. - George Bush III, I mean Barack Obama

Look who subscribes to trickle down economics now.

[nanc12]

Even spooky Ann Coulter is on board with Obama. She told Hannity that the repubs should give in on the taxes for the rich. When he was stuttering in surprise, she said, "We lost the election, Sean!!"

[Lindag20]

I heard that conservative women were all beautiful, what happened with Ann Coulter?

[MaineRep]

Obama won't compromise, what a surprise. He has put enough into his proposal that would prompt any Republican from supporting it. The amount of the increase proposed is more than what he can take from the those making over $250,000. So where is the rest of this increase coming from? He won't say it, but it has to come from those making under $250,000.

He talks about his spending cuts but if you read his proposal, he is not saying what he will cut other than it will be negotiated in 2013 if we can afford to make the cuts. So much for cuts being part of this deal.

He then adds new spending to the deal. He tops it with usurping Congressional oversight but proposing that he should be the one to above increases to the debt ceiling. Doesn't matter that this is part of the separation of powers in the Constitution.

Then he says that the Republicans are holding America hostage. Perhaps he should look in the mirror.

[stevehamilton858]

BORROWEDLADDER28: What in your mind would be a logical and sensible way to approach entitlement reform? You can't do it with a machete.

[Vorenious]

Screw it, go over the cliff and them impeach Nobama!