Obama's starting point on fiscal cliff talks is his original proposal
WASHINGTON — President Obama will begin talks with congressional leaders on Friday with a plan to raise $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue from the wealthy — making clear that, at least at the outset, a wide gulf remains between congressional Republicans and the White House on the most contentious point in the negotiations.
While Obama said last week he is not wedded to every detail of his previous proposals, the White House said on Tuesday that it does not intend to provide any new plan or make any concessions before negotiations begin.
Rather, Obama will present his 2013 budget as his starting point — a plan that sought to reduce borrowing over the next 10 years by $4 trillion. That budget proposal was rejected by both houses of Congress. The House vote was 414-0; the Senate vote was 99-0.
“We know what a truly balanced approach to our fiscal challenges looks like,” Press Secretary Jay Carney said. “The president has put forward a very specific plan that will be what he brings to the table when he sits down with congressional leaders.”
Obama meets this week with top lawmakers from both parties to begin negotiations on the fiscal cliff, a series of automatic tax hikes and spending cuts at the end of the year. Obama has said that the election validated his approach to tax policy.
Obama's previous proposal called for raising $1.6 trillion in new taxes on the wealthy by allowing tax rates to increase, imposing a new special tax on millionaires and limiting deductions for the wealthy. He also proposed $340 billion in health-care and entitlement savings, continuing $1.1 trillion in spending cuts already passed into law and generating another $1 trillion in savings through the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The demand for $1.6 trillion in new taxes is far greater than Obama proposed in negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in summer 2011. At the time, Obama wavered between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion in new tax revenue.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- FBI agent, 2 others sentenced in contractor kickback scheme in Utah
- Appalachian miners wiped out by coal glut they can’t reverse
- Indiana governor wants changes to religious-objection law
- Despite high gas costs, Northeast resistant to pipelines
- A bipartisan push on toxic chemicals makes some Democrats fume
- Supreme Court allows Obamacare’s Medicare costs board to stand
- Florida church bus crash kills 8
- Experts skeptical of N.D.’s new oil train safety checks
- Obama vetoes union election bill; streamlined election process to move forward
- Young white males replace older black men as OD victims as heroin deaths climb
- Supreme Court split on ‘appropriate’ cost of mandates from EPA