WASHINGTON — U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner’s offer to accept a tax rate increase for the wealthiest Americans knocks down a key Republican roadblock to a deal resolving the year-end “fiscal cliff.”
The question now boils down to what President Barack Obama offers in return. Such major questions, still unanswered so close to the end of the year suggest, however, that no spending and tax agreement is imminent.
A source familiar with the Obama-Boehner talks confirmed that Boehner proposed extending low tax rates for everyone who has less than $1 million in net annual income, meaning tax rates would rise on all above that line.
Under current law, the 35 percent top tax rate is scheduled to expire on Jan. 1, and would automatically go to 39.6 percent. Boehner’s proposal would allow that rate to rise as scheduled at a threshold of $1 million — putting it back to where it was during the Clinton administration.
The White House has not accepted the proposal and the source could not confirm any additional talks were held on Sunday between Obama and Boehner.
With just over two weeks before the fiscal cliff’s $600 billion in automatic tax hikes and spending cuts are triggered, threatening a new recession, there is little time to craft a comprehensive deal that will satisfy both Democrats and Republicans.
Until the latest Republican offer, made on Friday, Boehner had insisted on extending all of the Bush era’s lower tax rates, resisting Obama’s demand to let the marginal rates rise on income above $250,000. A rising chorus of business executives also had urged Republicans to agree to this.
Some lawmakers and congressional aides had predicted that Republicans, once serious negotiations began, might try to raise the $250,000 threshold, say to $500,000 or $1 million. They also speculated that Republicans, if forced into a tax rate hike on the upper-income groups, might seek a smaller increase, say to around 37 percent.
Although the White House has not accepted Boehner’s gambit, it could push negotiations away from entrenched, ideological positions.
“Boehner has now accepted the premise of higher rates. So now we’re just arguing over details. I think it’s a significant step,” said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research Group.
A framework deal spelling out tax revenue and spending cut targets to be finalized in the new year could be possible, Valliere said.
“Boehner’s offer to allow tax rates to go up for taxpayers earning over $1 million fundamentally transforms fiscal cliff negotiations,” added Sean West, U.S. policy analyst at Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy.
In a note to clients, West wrote that it signals, significantly, that Boehner ultimately believes a deal to avoid the cliff is still possible.
“The political burden is now shifted back to the president, who must be willing to take on his party in order to get a deal Boehner can ultimately pass. We do not think the president will overreach: Obama will work with Boehner to get to a deal.”
There are still several critical elements to a deal besides a tax rate increase on the wealthy, including Republican demands to cut spending on social programs.
Changes to the expensive Medicare and Medicaid health care programs for the elderly and the poor could be central to any deal, which must also include an increase in the federal debt limit needed by the end of February.
Demands social program cuts
Boehner conditioned his tax rate increase offer on Obama’s agreement to cuts in social program spending, often called entitlements.
Many Republican lawmakers want to raise the eligibility age for Medicare to 67 from 65. They also want to link Medicare to the income of recipients, making wealthier retirees pay more for their care.
Currently, Medicare does have some means testing, charging higher premiums for coverage of doctors visits and prescription drugs to individuals earning more than $85,000 and married couples earning more than $170,000. Only about 5 percent of recipients pay these higher premiums.
Thus far, Obama has offered only about $400 billion in 10-year entitlement savings, mostly through small adjustments in reining in health care costs — not fundamental changes such as raising the eligibility age.
And just as Boehner faces opposition in his own party to raising any tax rates, Obama faces opposition to cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security from Democrats, who pledged in election campaigns they would protect these programs.
A major bloc of congressional Democrats has already signaled they will not accept major cutbacks in Medicare as part of any fiscal cliff deal.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Maryland Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland are among the high ranking Democrats in the House who have come out forcefully in recent days against raising the age for eligibility for Medicare to 67 years of age.
“Given the level of savings that is being talked about from Medicare, you can’t get it all from providers and drug makers,” said Paul Heldman, an analyst at Potomac Research, which tracks Washington policy for investors.
“So opponents of raising the eligibility age have reason to believe beneficiaries will take some sort of hit if a mega-deal is cut,” he said.
If Republicans are not successful in securing entitlement program cuts in exchange for a tax-rate increase on the wealthy, they are adamant about using a debt-limit increase as leverage to overhaul Social Security and Medicare.
The U.S. Treasury expects to reach its $16.4 trillion statutory debt cap by year’s end, and will exhaust its remaining borrowing capacity around mid-February, risking a potential default.
Louisiana Republican Representative John Fleming, a member of the conservative Tea Party caucus who has never voted to increase the debt ceiling, said he would support a debt limit hike if it were part of a deal to make Medicare and Social Security sustainable.
The pace of activity could pick up the coming week.
House Republicans were told to prepare for a possible weekend session next week, potentially interrupting travel plans for the long Christmas holiday weekend.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor scheduled “possible legislation related to expiring provisions of law,” a reference to the expiring tax cuts, for the end of the week, portending a weekend session. Cantor has said the House would meet through the Christmas holidays and beyond.
Thomas Ferraro, Richard Cowan and Kim Dixon contributed to this report.



I hope Obama hold out for the $250,000 increase and not the $1 million. So far as medicare and SS are concerned ok, let’s make it age 66 and make all earned income subject to the taxes not stopping at $106k . It is the most regressive tax we have and it’s time to make everyone pay SS on their entire earned income.
I hope the elimination of the Bush tax cuts applies to all income levels and the earned income tax credit is eliminated. Cutting SS benefits by 12% would also help to bring the deficit down. We all must share the pain.
Eliminating the Bush tax cuts on those earning less thatn aourn $250k will do this country no good. People in the middle, lower income groups for the most part spend their money and that is what is needed to continue to grow out of this economic mess. By taking that much more out of the lower/middle income groups you essentially have reduced buying power by billions. That is not what is needed and neither is cutting SS benefits. Until this recession SS paid for itself and in fact had a surplus, one that would have continued for about the next 10 years. Cutting out the elderly is not the way for this country to move. Taxing those who have not been paying their fair share of SS is. Consider if you earn $106k you’ll pay right now about 11% of your income. I say you because the employer really pays nothing, he merely reduces what he can offer to pay by his “share” of SS. You ultimately pay it. Anyway, if you earn $1.6 m you’ll pay about 1.1 % of your income, and at $16 mil you’ll pay about .1%. Somehow that simply is not right, nor fair. I see from your post really that you seem to want to hurt the middle/lower income people. Why? Why is ok for the government to have a policy that redistributes from the lower/middle to upper income groups but not the other way around? All share the pain? Really? If we taxed those that earned over $1 mil net at a 50% rate they still would feel no where near the pain that middle and lower income people will feel by eliminating these tax cuts for them. I suggest you stop listening to conservative myths about how to fix the economy. Oh, yes, they really don’t have an answer except to hurt the elderly, the poor and the disabled.
I would remind you that social security is a retirement program and benefits are computed based on what you contribute. It has turned into a massive welfare program for liberal democrats but it was meant to be a retirement program. Hell, even some politicians call it a “trust” fund.
You really have no idea do you? A massive welfare program that until this recession brought in much more than it paid out? I suppose that doesn’t count huh? Yep, so long as the wealthy don’t have to pay it’s all going to be ok. I wonder if you’re wealthy and simply don’t want to pay or just have bought into the whole conservative bs about SS and Medicare. Personally I think you tell what kind of a country you have a lot on how they treat those less fortunate and the more vulnerable in the community. You I gather couldn’t care less about them so long as you don’t pay any taxes. For me, I’ll pay a bit more taxes and see that people are cared for.
I doubt that you really think much before you post. You are so caught up with yourself and your thinking and how right you know you are you don’t even bother to read the words of a post that contradicts your words.
Per the second verse of the Happy Birthday song, “How old are you …”
Social security was meant to be a retirement plan so the money that you contribute to the fund is yours for retirement. If people pay on all of their earnings, it will still be their money when they retire. Unless of course you are saying that the rich buggers should pay for your retirement because they can afford to but I would then be interested in how you would defend telling someone who contributed significantly more to the social security system than you should be happy receiving what everyone else receives, whether they contributed or not.
So it is their money when they retire. So what? Still give me a reason why the wealthy should pay for so much less percentage wise than the poor and middle class. People already receive whether they contributed or not, I have no problem with that and I do contribute. Or did anyway before I retired.
I have a problem with anyone that receives social security and did not contribute to the fund unless it is a widow of a person that did contribute to the fund. I am truly sorry that you think it is a redistribution tool. It is that kind of thinking and believing that has taken us from a country taking care of our self to expecting government to do it for us.
And it is your kind of thinking that has led us the largest redistibution of wealth in the history of the U.S.. Redistribution from the poor and middle class to the already wealthy. Frankly I like the fact that we are becoming more of a caring country rather than one that cares not for the poor, the elderly or the vulnerable like you.
Now you aren’t making any sense at all.
I don’t think EFL is that vulnerable.
Point is if they contribute more, they get more. How does that help you?
Looks like classic bargaining. The compromise will probably be $500 k.
The basic solution was proposed over 2 weeks ago and it’s still a PITA to the GOP since Tim Kaine, from VA no less, proposed it. Raise the tax limit from $ 250k to $600k and repeal the negotiation provisions of Medicare D by negotiating the perscription provision’s. That alone gets the budget numbers down to a workable level. and get the cost of entitlement’sback under control. Is it is 100% perfect solution ? No, but even Boehner has to know that by kowtowing to the Radical Right,namely Cantor and McCarthy and lil’ Grover, that he is never gonna get anywhere. Somewhere Boehner finally got the ‘stone’s to smack Cantor and Company and remind them that if the Country goes off the cliff, especially right now, that the GOP is going to be the one to take ‘the hit’ for what’s going to happen.. It might not be such a bad thing to remind Paulie and Company that they are right next to Cantor and his bunch if this sulking and temper tantrum nonsense goes on much farther or longer. The days of just saying NO and then sitting and daring anyone to do something without ‘their permission’ are over.
I for the most part agree with you but I really think we can keep the tax limit at $250K without harming anyone. We’re really not talking about a lot of money on an individual basis. And remember that $250k comes after deductions so the real income level is much higher. Plus those earning that amount already get a nice tax break by not having to pay FICA on well over half of their income.
It’s “Prescription” Mike
“Currently, Medicare does have some means testing, charging higher premiums for coverage of doctors visits and prescription drugs to individuals earning more than $85,000 and married couples earning more than $170,000.”
Here is part of the problem. With these types of annual income, why are they receiving Medicare in the first place? If you want to stop the waste, the first thing to do is stop paying Medicare and Social Security to people who don’t need it!
You have to pay them the social security, it’s their money even though most 80 plus years olds only contributed a fraction of what they have received over the years. I know of an 88 year old who contributed about $12,000 to social security and so far has taken out about $322,000. That is a 27.5% return and that is the problem with social security and public pensions.
Social Security could be better funded if we raised the cap on the payroll tax. Instead of the $105k (somewhere around there) double it – $210k – or higher..
Yes, it’s their money. With interest.
27.5% seems like a reasonable return, especially when I make one tenth of one percent on my money. Do democrats ever think things through or just go with emotion?
Stop all foriegn aid and give Americans a break
The solution for this countries financial woes is massive tax increases coupled with massive entitlement cuts. No one in Washington DC dares to state this simple fact so here is what will happen. Obama will get his tax increase, there will be promises made to trim the spending, the American people will feel good that the “good old boys” got the job done and in a year, we will be right back at it again. Its called politics and politics trumps real problem solving.
if we’re going to do massive “entitlement” cuts, then lets start with our elected officials – we should eliminate their tax payer funded health care, we should also eliminate their lifetime pay – and then cut their pay in half. Lets see who is really in the game for the better good of the country.
Never waste a BOehNER.
Dear John: good going, now solve it.
Cuts? How about defense?
We spend more than the next 13 countries combined; and 12 of them are suppose to be our allies. We do not own the world and certainly do not have to be the policeman for the world. We have gotten nothing for all this except dead and maimed young, spending that does not better our nation, and resentment of those we supposedly were protecting (e.g. Iranians, Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis,…..). It’s time to cut our losses …….. why pour good money after bad?
At this point, what does it matter who they tax? Even if the tax cuts all go away and everyone pays more, is it really going to change anything? Government will still spend outrageous amounts of money and throw us deeper into debt. Young generations will continue to be the ones paying for this in the end as the inevitable will come–higher taxes, retirement at an age well past the time we should be working, and debt so high that you could tax everyone at 100% and still never pay it off. Democrats and republicans both have the same problem, they spend. We have a spending problem.
Rich is just not having money, it is also by location as well, if you live in Bangor Maine and make 200k you live pretty, that same 200k in NY City not so much, try living in Beverly Hills on $200K or any beach front property, so “Rich” is quite a broad stroke of the brush. Location has a lot to do with who is considered “Rich”