Boehner, Obama close to a "fiscal cliff" deal?

Though many differences remain, President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner have never been closer to a deal, numerous congressional and White House sources confirm to CBS News.

Sources familiar with the Friday call from Boehner to Mr. Obama, placed after the president's emotional statement on the Connecticut elementary school massacre, was the most productive of the fiscal cliff process.

In that call, Boehner offered to raise marginal income tax rates on households earning more than $1 million in adjusted gross income. The tax rate Boehner offered was 39.6 percent, the top rate under the Clinton-era tax code Mr. Obama favors.

• Boehner proposes raising taxes on millionaires
• A "fiscal cliff" Christmas?

This was the first time Boehner put higher income tax rates on the table and numerous sources said that broke the logjam in the talks. In theory, a deal could be struck by midweek.

Neither side is predicting this outcome, merely acknowledging, in ways they never would have before, that it is theoretically possible to pull everything together that fast. But significant obstacles remain.

Here are the broad outlines of Boehner's proposal:

Since the revenue component is the most important, here is a summary of the Boehner offer, as confirmed by numerous sources familiar with the talks.

Within the this tax revenue proposal, there are some snags. The White House doesn't want to credit the $60 billion in CPI changes as revenue increases, thus argues Boehner's under the $1 trillion revenue threshold Obama considers crucial to a deal. More broadly, the White House has not agreed to any CPI adjustment.

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[brian_pdx]

Tax increases on income over $1 million per year does not raise enough revenue. Increased taxes on income of $250,000 per year and up is fair and fiscally responsible. Also increase capital gains and inheritance taxes. We need to tax the people responsible for the economic recession and real estate meltdown, not penalize people relying on Medicare and Social Security to eke out a modest living.

[lloydbest1]

Boehner grudgingly settles for a marginal tax increase for households making more than a million dollarrs per year. The rate increase only goes up to the level it was when Clinton was in office. That isn't going to win us a whole lot of revenue. Better we should increase rates for any households earning more than $250K and then up them by more than the four percent that Boehner is unwilling but compelled to settle for. This is not on the table for any discussions and even Bernie Sanders isn't talking too much about it, but top rates should probably settle in at around 45 percent or a tad more to realize any significant revenue.
We can cut spending, too. I'm all for that. Defense spending can be cut by 50 percent and we would still have an effective fighting force. We don't even need a homeland security department, let alone one which has grown to the extent it has. Way too much money is devoted to security itself and not enough to remedy the various inequities and injustices that make such security necessary.
Let's end the multibillion dollar per year subsidy to the "Big" oil, ag, pharma and tobacco. Granted, neither defense cuts nor an end to corporate welfare, by itself, will help us out of our sea of red ink but I mention thsre two things to point out we can make cuts without touching Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Aid to Dependant Children, Food Stamps and a host of other programs designed to help our most vulnerable citizens.
Another way we can realize savings and also give our economy a boost is to end tax breaks for those companies that offshore labor. In fact, these firms should have to pay a tax penalty for doing so. In addition we can discount some corporate tax to those firms who retain labor here and for those who bring manufacturing back home.
In a comsumer economy - and ours is nothing, if not that - promoting measures that allow some chance the poor and lower middle classes to earn enough to have some discretionary money will do more to help get our stumbling economy on a more solid and stable footing than anything else. Continuing to offshore labor or instituting tax rate increases on our bottom feeders, as Boehner has suggested in the past, will make stabilizing our economy that much more difficult to achieve.
Tax increases alone and budget cuts alone will not help us out much. We need both and we need to bear in mind who will be helped and who will be hurt by whatever approach we take.

[davidjo12]

The fiscal cliff could be delayed by congress through unanimous consent.
The fiscal cliff cuts both military and discretionary spending equally.
The republicans are trying to find a way to preserve military spending while cutting social security and/or medicare and medicaid.
The republicans are an embarrassment.
Better to go over the cliff.

[tjolley111]

Go over the cliff I say. We can't fix the budget without both income increases and spending cuts. Sequestration and rolling back to Clinton-era tax rates on Jan 1 accomplishes both.

[john92021]

the investment tax rate stays at 15% and we still go 1 trillion+ in the hole every year. I guess I'm too stupid to follow the logic of political finance.

[Ulgnud]

Any increase in the debit ceiling is proof that no meaningful spending cuts are intended. Cut the spending and there is no need for it. Let the Tax n Spend party take the lumps when the handouts dry up. As a nation we can endure the automatic cuts. At least this will be meaningful cuts without attempts to shield certain voting blocks.

[askagain]

Whoever heard of getting out of debt by spending more money than you have? Of course, the government can raise more revenue by increasing taxes but that never solves the spending problem. The only difference between a family's spending and the government's spending is that the government can confiscate more of our dollars through taxation. The idea that you can lower the debt by raising taxes while lowering spending is sheer folly. And raising the debt ceiling gives the government the green light to continue spending beyond its means. That is like raising a person's credit card limit when he can't even meet his current payments.

[cubscout09]

Boehner proposes: Waiving most of the scheduled budget cuts under sequestration and replacing them with the entitlement cuts.

That means restoring the cuts to defense spending and doubling cuts on entitlements. That didn't fly when the House passed the exact same bill, just before the election. And, it sure won't fly now.

[cubscout09]

Boehner proposes: Waiving most of the scheduled budget cuts under sequestration and replacing them with the entitlement cuts.

That means restoring the cuts to defense spending and doubling cuts on entitlements. That didn't fly when the House passed the exact same bill, just before the election. And, it sure won't fly now.

[realsickofit]

Take over the cliff, if a 10% cut is a cliff. We need to get our spending and debt under control.

[nearl451]

With you on this one.

The economy can probably take it. View itas a stress test.

[askagain]

Agreed. The average American will be hurt more by any bargain Obama and Boehner reach than they would be by a 10% cut in spending. We will never get out of debt unless spending is lowered. Nor will our economy improve when people have fewer discretionary dollars to spend.