House conservatives won't accept a "bad" deal on "fiscal cliff"

President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner have been keeping a tight lid on the specifics of their conversations regarding the "fiscal cliff." CBS News has learned some of the details of those talks. And, as Major Garret reports, their most recent exchanges have been "gentle" and "substantive."

It's unclear which job is more difficult for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, during the so-called "fiscal cliff" negotiations: configuring a deal with President Obama or convincing his conservative caucus to support a potential compromise.

Although they sounded sympathetic to Boehner, a group of conservative House Republicans told reporters that they remain skeptical about backing any "fiscal cliff" deal that compromised their principles of limited government and lower taxes.

"It's my opinion that a bad deal is worse than no deal at all," Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., told reporters today. "I would rather see - if cooler heads can prevail in January - that we wait...and [it] goes through the process that is open and transparent and includes the dialogue between the House and the Senate and the president."

After a difficult phone call last night between Boehner and President Obama, progress on a potential deal seems to have come to a halt. That notion became glaringly evident today when Boehner told his members not to make Christmas plans.

Both sides presented a new offer that was quickly rejected. Boehner's was similar to his first offer, aides say, and the White House's second proposal changed only slightly, offering $1.4 trillion worth of tax increases instead of $1.6 trillion.

To appease his Republican colleagues (and his own conservative principles), Boehner has been demanding more spending cuts from the president.

For instance, Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, said he won't compromise until the president offers $5 trillion worth of spending cuts. "[T]hen I will consider maybe compromising on some of the issues I have campaigned on," he said.

$5 trillion worth of spending cuts is more than the entire deficit reduction package of tax increases and spending cuts the president proposed (which already included $1 trillion of spending cuts already passed), and it is in line with the House-passed Republican budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

"We're not doing the best job we can do," Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., said, voicing highly critical observations about the top two negotiators. "We need people who are going to be bold. We need leaders...we need leaders on both sides and we don't have that right now."

Amash, who was kicked off one of his committee assignments by Republican leadership for some of his voting positions, said his constituents are not very happy with the House Speaker.

"If Speaker Boehner wants to come back to my district he's not going to be met with very much welcome," Amash said.

However, some conservative Republicans are not blaming Boehner and are sympathetic about the position he's in.

"I don't have faith in too many people in Washington, D.C., because there's not much courage in Washington, D.C., but I think Speaker Boehner's doing the best he can with the hand he's been dealt," Labrador said.

[GOP-R--Con-Men]

Voters please note. If republicans will not move on something they agree with Denocrats on, why should anyone believe they would cooperate to move on other issues that much bigger? In other words republicans are not in congress to solve America's problems. They are in Congress to undo and or sabotage any and everything that is beneficial to ordinary Americans. This is especially true of programs that provide a safety net (social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, unions) etc. A vote for republicans is a vote for hate, division and chaos.

[cleric77]

Speaker Boehner will be hold a special news conference today, do you think that our major news outlets, like ABC, NBC, and CBS will be covering it or even reporting about it??????????

[fxr60]

Raising taxes on the wealthy will only pay for 8 days of expense-that has already been proven by MANY economist. Obama is playing his class warfare and wants to divide the country on purpose! He has NO business experience or business sense. He couldn't balance a budget-whoops he HASN'T balanced a budget yet! He sent one to Congress and did not get ONE vote on it, not ONE Democrat voted for it. See "2016 Obama's America" and you will see what we will look like in 2016! Out on DVD now-read the last page of the scene carefully! Would like to ask Obama if he ever got a job from a poor man-since he doesn't like "Big business" he must not like companies that hires thousands of people, inventors like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that came from nothing and now has made Billions and improved technology beyond belief. Old timers like Henry Ford, Post cereal famlies, Waltons started with a "Dime store" and now employess thousands, etc. where would this country be without people who made their wealth in creating jobs for others? Who cares how much they make as long as they provide jobs, healthcare, ( we don't need Obamacare)and we can make a living. Obama is for the ones that will vote for him and that is it, no one else-rich or poor if they don't agree with him!! Google Sam Vakin(an Israeli) psychiatrist and see his video on Obama-I have seen several reports on him and they all agree on him!!!

[rightontarget]

Like it or lump it, taxes WILL be going up one way or the other. Either they goes up for ALL of us or just the upper 2%. Doesn't matter one way or the other to me. Just as long as the 2% don't get off scott free. I'd rather voluntarily jump right off that so called "fiscal cliff" rather than allow the GOP to hold the middle class hostage. Sooner or later they will have to come to the realization that the wealthy "job creators" aren't the "Gods" that they think they are!!!!!! It's not like these higher tax rates are anything new. We are GOING BACK to the SAME rates we had during the Clinton administration and if you remember the wealthy did just fine AND we had a balanced budget. It's all about GREED so go figure!

[rightontarget]

No Mortard, the rich will NOT get off "scott free". Not at all and that is what they are afraid of. I don't care if I have to go down as long as I can take them with me. It's about NOT letting the wealthy get away with thinking they are BETTER than everybody else. It's about FAIR distribution of the tax burden and it is to enlighten everybody to the fact that the so called "job creators" only create bigger dividends for their stockholders and bigger bonuses for their executives. The middle class is not "afraid" of them anymore and will not tolerate being blackmailed.

[TJphoto]

So the Repubs won't accept a bad deal? Try this scenario. Nothing. All tax cuts expire and everyone is PO'd. Now the Dems introduce a bill that restores those cuts to the 98% and the Repubs vote against it. Oh it's going to get colorful watching "As the Capitol Dome Turns"

[stevehamilton858]

Boehner is going to get fired. His underlings will rebel, gridlock will ensue, the GOP will get blamed by voters and Boehner will be the fall guy.

The jamokes running the party will once again take what they perceive to be the path of least resistance and just can Boehner. Maybe, since they liked Trump so much during the primaries, they'll bring back the Donald, and he can say sternly, "you're fired".

[davidd5063]

I didn't know being an old, wrinkled, self-serving, lazy, entitled, tax evading, bigotted, terrorist bi%*h was a "conservative principle"?

[Type_Z]

Redistribution of wealth. Bad plan guys. "Bad Deal".

[Type_Z]

Victory

It's not a good plan for anyone. Look at facts, look at history. The poor are not made more wealthy by redistribution. Look it up. Seriously. Look at what it actually does. There are so few that wealthy its barely a drop in the bucket. It should even be the topic. It is so insignificant Obama is cleverly avoiding the real issue which is simply spending more than you have.

[stevehamilton858]

Please define what you mean by "redistribution of wealth". It is an overused term that appears to mean different things to different people. And whether or not it is a bad idea depends on its definition.

[leftcoastrocky]

"If the increased eligibility age were in effect in 2014, the costs to individuals, businesses, and states would be twice as large as the federal savings. In effect, Americans would pay $2 to save the federal budget $1—thereby increasing overall health spending."

[Shibbol]

Translation: When you hear "bad deal" from the House GOP, you know it's going to be a blessing for the middle class. It's like the old quote, "When politicians talk of peace, the people run for cover."

[stevehamilton858]

I like it. Especially "BAD DEAL" is good for the middle class. Conversely, a Republican "GOOD DEAL" will stick it to the middle and lower class citizens.