Hot rhetoric, tiny numbers separate Obama, Boehner

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, gestures to show how close he says the Speaker and the President are to a deal on the fiscal cliff, during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, on Thursday, Dec. 20, 2012. Photo by The Associated Press.

ALAN FRAM, Associated Press

Friday, December 21, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — Despite all the hot fiscal cliff rhetoric, the differences between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner seem relatively narrow. So why haven't they shaken hands already? One answer: Both sides need to keep — or get — their own troops behind them.

In their cliff standoff, Obama wants to raise taxes by about $20 billion a year more than Boehner. The two men differ over spending cuts by roughly the same amount.

That's real money by most measures. Yet such numbers are barely noticeable compared to the $2.6 trillion the government is projected to collect next year, and to the $3.6 trillion it's expected to spend.

As the "cliff" approaches — economy-shaking tax increases and spending cuts that start hitting in early January unless lawmakers act first — each side says the other isn't being serious enough about trimming federal deficits. But their inability so far to strike a compromise underscores that their problem is more than arithmetic — it's also about the difficult politics that Democrat Obama and Republican Boehner face when it comes to lining up votes.

Chastened by Obama's re-election, Boehner has violated a quarter-century of Republican dogma by offering to raise taxes, including boosting income tax rates on earnings exceeding $1 million annually. Eager for a budget deal that would let him move on to other issues, Obama in turn would cut the growth of Social Security benefits, usually off-limits to Democrats. He also would impose tax increases on a broader swath of people than millionaires — those with incomes over $400,000. But that figure, too, is a retreat from what he campaigned on: the $200,000 income ceiling on individuals and $250,000 on couples.

That means both men have angered lawmakers and staunch supporters of their respective parties, just when the need to retain that support is crucial. Neither wants to risk his political capital by embracing a deal his own party rejects.

"When you walk into a room and represent a group and you have to give ground to get a deal, you have to stay in that room as long as you can and you have to walk out with blood on your brow," said Joseph Minarik, research director for the Committee for Economic Development and a veteran of grueling budget talks as a former Clinton White House and House Democratic aide. "Otherwise, the people outside the room don't believe you've fought hard for them."

With no quick resolution in sight, Boehner worked Thursday to push a backup bill through the House that would raise taxes on people earning at least $1 million but not on those making less. Yet the difficulty in reaching consensus was apparent once again: Boehner abruptly pulled back a vote on the so-called Plan B proposal Thursday night, citing a lack of support among Republicans.

A separate bill, approved Thursday night, would replace across-the-board cuts in defense and domestic programs with cuts in Obama's health care overhaul and other specified programs.

Economists say the tens of billions of dollars separating the president and speaker are relatively minuscule, especially when compared to the size of the U.S. economy, which exceeds $15 trillion a year.

"It's not vanishingly small, but it is minor," said Alan D. Viard, a tax scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "It certainly would be a disappointment if that minor of a gap would end up blocking an agreement."

Even though Obama's and Boehner's dollar differences are small, one hindrance to a deal could be the symbolic political consequence of retreating on their numbers, even just by a little.

For Boehner to add, say, another $100 billion to the tax increase over 10 years could well mean that people with incomes well below $1 million a year would get a tax increase, something he wants to limit.

On the other hand, adding $100 billion more in spending cuts could mean a deeper hit than Obama wants to Medicare. The president prefers to limit Medicare cuts to the reimbursements that doctors and other health care providers receive, but ever deeper cuts could mean more doctors would be likely to stop treating Medicare patients — an outcome Democrats don't want.

None of this means there aren't real budget differences between Democrats and Republicans.

Obama has proposed raising taxes by $1.2 trillion over the coming decade by boosting the current top 35 percent rate to 39.6 percent for income over $400,000, plus other increases on the highest earning Americans. He's also says he's offered about $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years, including slowing the growth of benefits from Social Security and other programs.

In addition, the president would pluck $400 billion in savings from Medicare and Medicaid, the health care programs for the elderly and poor whose defense Democrats consider precious priorities.

Boehner has offered about $1 trillion in tax increases and roughly the same amount in spending savings. An earlier Boehner offer included $600 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings — well more than Obama — but it's unclear whether the speaker is still seeking that figure.

Because of a dispute over how some savings are classified, Boehner says Obama's offer is really $1.3 trillion in higher taxes and only about $850 billion in spending cuts.

The House speaker says Obama's offer is not balanced because its new taxes and spending cuts are unequal. And he complains it does too little to control fast-growing benefit programs like Medicare, a chief driver of the federal government's mushrooming deficits.

"The real issue here, as we all know, is spending," Boehner said Thursday. "You go through all these discussions, I don't think the White House has gotten serious about the big spending problem the country faces."

The two men's differences work out to $200 billion over 10 years in taxes, and about the same in spending, depending on whose numbers are used. Either way, their gap is less than 1 percent of the money the government will spend and tax anyway.

"They're a couple hundred billion apart. This is absolutely senseless," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., insisting Boehner should compromise. "These are gyrations I've never seen before."

There are other differences, too.

Obama wants several billion dollars in infrastructure spending to goose the economy and to extend expiring unemployment benefits. He also wants the government's authority to borrow money extended for two more years — until after the 2014 congressional elections — with Congress having little more than symbolic opportunities to block it, a year longer than Boehner has offered.

Even so, the numbers being proposed by Obama and Boehner are so close, and the political risks both men have taken on taxes and Social Security benefits are so stark, that many consider it almost unthinkable that they would not eventually complete a deal.

"Having come out of their trenches, they either have to shake hands or get shot, maybe by their own troops," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition, an anti-deficit group.

Associated Press writer Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.

More like this story

wow 5 months ago

Boehner is SAD! I mean the November election should have told him what the majority of American people want...so I don;t understand all his negotiating. The fella is SFOS it makes me sick. Follow that up with this guy Canter and ya got a real three ring circle jerk goin. It ain't every republican, but it is enough of them that have scratching my head and wondering what they are actually not getting

newone 5 months ago

That is because most Republican's care more about sticking it to Obama than they do about getting this country out of the mess they got us into; the only thing they care about right now are making sure Obama fails, period! It is sad they cannot put their hatred towards Obama to the side for the good of this country.

asb 5 months ago

I think it was the republican leadership that stood in a photo-op and stated loudly that their main job was to defeat Obama, not the other way around. Demonizing opponents only has short-term gains. Long term goals are reached through persuasion, cooperation, and compromise. The Teaparty took those tools away from the GOP for a few years, but they know how to do it as long as they can keep their extremists under control. Obama and Boehner are both good men, but one of them has his hands tied behind his back by greed and fear run amok in his ranks. Reason wins out over the long haul and the greater good is the long term winner in a democracy. Extremist bile makes a tough stain, but fades with time.

Sequoia 5 months ago

Democrats won the presidency and the senate. The Republicans held on to the House only because the districts have been gerrymandered to death. The conservative "movement" has been soundly rejected by the American people. Too bad nobody has told the Republican party.

Sequoia 5 months ago

And yet, in a statewide election, Missouri elected a democratic senator and rejected a man who stood for everything that is wrong about the conservative "movement." So it isn't all that "red."

Paroquet 5 months ago

The conservative "movement", by and large composed of an Evancelical base, is what is mostly to blame for the current divisiveness between basic ideologies. The same as what we're seeing with the current rhetoric; neither side giving an inch.

Graceful? It boggles one's mind how easily you cast stones but cannot look into a mirror objectively. I honestly wonder why you even bother getting out of bed in the morning for all you have to look forward to through the goggles you wear.

newone 5 months ago

If everyone hates Obama like you say they do then how did he win the popular and electoral vote? That doesn't look too good for the Republicans that even though everyone hates Obama he was still re-elected over a Republican.

bluesfan13 5 months ago

Voter registration fraud. Duh...

newone 5 months ago

Oh good Lord, I sure hope your kidding with that statement bluesfan13

asb 5 months ago

"As they are saying he won with the 'uninformed voter' crowd" It is exactly the uninformed and misinformed voter crowd that has allowed extremist ideas to hijack the Republican party and ideologies, dragging conservative values to fundamentalist intolerance, driving financial and business interests from strong growth and future-looking policy to nearly complete unregulated and greed-based laisess-faire rape of the lower and middle classes . . . all with the help of the "Fair and Balanced daily dose of hogwash of the FRightWing media" You hit it exactly, but you're aiming at the wrong target.

spelchek 5 months ago

"The conservative "movement" has been soundly rejected by the American people."--- "soundly"? Is that what you call a RHINO, Mormon (lets face it, his religion was an issue with the tolerant party), former governor of MA, inventor of Obamacare, losing to a socialist liberal?

3633 5 months ago

Graceful, it is absoletly ashame that you speak of the President of these United states this way regardless of how you feel personally; you show no respect for the office. We need compromise on how to get things done. The majority won, and President Obama was re-elected. Now is the time to move on with ideas and ways to move Forward, not stay the same. If the Other party would have won we would have had to accept it and move on; so how about moving on!!!!!!

JCLifer 5 months ago

I disagree. We do not need more compromise. Compromise means both sides lose. We should not be compromising the future of our country. We need for both sides to work together for the betterment of our country to benefit all. We need a "win-win" not a compromise. We do not need to negotiate. Negotiate also means that everyone loses. We need a mutually-beneficial strategy for success.

However, as long as no one can agree on how much tax money is enough, how big government should be, how many abled-bodied people we need to make dependent on the government, etc. it will never be good.

This once-great country is going down in flames. It is a shame, but I hope the demise is quick and that the eagle can be quickly put out of its misery.

The marriage has failed. It is time for a divorce. Since the people cannot come together, let them quickly separate in peace and go off and start their own little slices of heaven. Trying to keep this country together is a waste of time. Get it over with and move on.

asb 5 months ago

Separate into what? where would you draw the boundaries? Would you like city states with your fried eagle? Outstate NY would go red while NYC would go blue, and it's that way everywhere. Or, do you mean round up all the blue and shoot them? Send them to Africa? Canada?, Cuba? If this impossible rhetoric is your best solution, and you reject negotiaion and compromise (which has worked in open societies for a few thousand years), then you offer nothing at all, which is perfect Teaparty. Open conflict will go left, period.

JCLifer 5 months ago

What I offer is to go back to the Constitution that has served this country very well until the last 10-15 years. However, liberals do not value the constitution and want to trample all over it. Since they do not like the way things have been run, they should propose where they are willing to go to let the rest of us live in peace. The ones who like the way it has been can stay where they are. No blame, no bad feelings- just time to face reality and go our separate ways. It isn't working. There isn't anything to "give" when you are trying to keep it the good old way it has been. That is what has gotten us to this point. The conservatives have given too much, and now things are miserable for both sides.

jcguy25 5 months ago

I agree 3633. Talk about un-American. Even though I could not stand Bush Jr., he was still my President. Her posts are some of the most disgusting bile I've heard anyone wretch up on here. Disgraceful!

JCLifer 5 months ago

its a shame it is all true too. That makes it doubly sad...

jcguy25 5 months ago

That's your opinion and hers. Not mine or many others.

connor 5 months ago

Suddenly the office of the President is to be honored and we need compromise?

Funny how quickly the Liberal/Feminist can turn their attitude.

After the attacks on Bush that are still on going, the community activist invasions, Code Pink the complete lack of bi-partisanship with the Obama-Care tyranny.

Now though it is such a bad evil thing if a Conservative even mimics the left's hatred on a low level.

Whatever.

3633 5 months ago

The only way is to get together for a win-win, you are correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3633 5 months ago

Separation is why the Repulicans lost, the people want what they voted for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3633 5 months ago

What, Graceful are you just bitter about life? How do you know or say all this. What has President Obama done for you to talk this way. I just don't get the bitterness; give it up. Now, were you this upset when we went to war, do you realize what has happened over the past 12 years or is it just the last 4 ??? Get over yourself and find a way to be happy, live, love, get a grip!!!!

John 5 months ago

Yeah, Graceful. Give up on principles, don't voice your opinion in the liberal wilderness (Isn't it they who lalk about openness?), get a grip -- and all those other cliche' buzz words they use.

Paroquet 5 months ago

Buzz words? Ain't all that well edjukated, are ya? You thinkin' "cliche'" is a thousand-dollar word?

Look, I got no problems with either side of the nutzoid coin what can understand the other. Graceful has her opinion on many issues, lets them be known, and takes her licks. S/he's true to their pride. Ain't necessarily saying that that is the best to hope for, but at least it's consistent.

Principles we all got, Bub. Some of us have points, and some just angry (or ignorant) vocalizations.

I'm occasionally guilty of either or both.

John 5 months ago

I would say you are correct. Especially if you think a buzz word cannot be a cliche'.

And, it must be YOU who thinks the word, cliche/, is a million dolllar word.

None of your diatribe changes what I wrote, nor does the followup by 3633.

3633 5 months ago

Who said this is a Liberal talking, speak what you know!!!!!!! Speak Truth and not what you don't know!!!!!

spelchek 5 months ago

Obama needs the extra money to pay for the billions getting ready to be lost in GM. These rich people need to learn that when government invests in something with a negative loss in billions that they need to step up an cover said losses all the while trying to figure out how to make more money in order for government to lose more and demonize them again to garner voter support. I know, I know....Bush's fault. Round round baby round round like a record player baby...

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

News Tribune