“Fiscal cliff” deal starting to take shape?
But behind the scenes, top officials who have been involved in the talks for many months say the contours of a deal – including the size of tax hikes and spending cuts it will likely contain — are starting to take shape.
Cut through the fog, and here’s what to expect: Taxes will go up just shy of $1.2 trillion — the middle ground of what President Barack Obama wants and what Republicans say they could stomach. Entitlement programs, mainly Medicare, will be cut by no less than $400 billion – and perhaps a lot more, to get Republicans to swallow those tax hikes. There will be at least $1.2 trillion in spending cuts and “war savings.” And any final deal will come not by a group effort but in a private deal between two men: Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). The two men had what one insider described as a short, curt conversation Wednesday night — but the private lines of communications remain very much open…
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told “Morning Joe” on Tuesday that he could see $400 billion in entitlement cuts. That’s the floor, according to Democratic aides, and it could go higher in the final give and take. The vast majority of the savings, and perhaps all of it, will come from Medicare, through a combination of means-testing, raising the retirement age and other “efficiencies” to be named later. It is possible Social Security gets tossed into the mix, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to fight that, if he has to yield on other spending fronts.
Democrats want most Medicare and other entitlement savings to kick in between 10 and 20 years from now, which will make some Republicans choke. Democrats will point to the precedent set by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) of pushing most mandatory savings off until a decade from now.
“A lot of the big entitlement savings comes in the 10-20 year budget window, not the next 10 years,” a Democratic aide said. “Everybody will need to get on board understanding that. Paul Ryan and the Obama budget are the same on health cuts for next 10 years.”









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Hahahahahaha
Man, these deomcrats should go on the comedy circuit.
darwin on November 29, 2012 at 8:52 AM
I hate our politicians. Our system of government is eroded beyond all sense.
p0s3r on November 29, 2012 at 8:55 AM
This is politico’s idea of a fair deal — R’s agree to huge tax increases in exchange for token entitlement reforms and phony savings gimmicks.
If D’s really think this is the endgame, we’re headed for a collision soon.
Chuckles3 on November 29, 2012 at 9:02 AM
Let’s find out who isn’t choking on this and primary them.
moo on November 29, 2012 at 9:04 AM
So the taxes go up now, but the cuts are over 10 years… Yup, we’re already over the cliff. Hold on to your wallets, boys and girls, D.C. is awake and it needs to feed.
Weight of Glory on November 29, 2012 at 9:05 AM
Well, I’ve been on the Let It Burn bandwagon. This would certainly accomplish that. $1.2 trillion in tax hikes(I assume over 10 years)? That’s 1 1/2 times the size of what the Bush tax cuts on the top 2% allegedly cost over the last 10 years. So we’re gonna not only return to the Clinton tax rates for that bracket, but go even higher? And that’s on top of Obamacare’s taxes being implemented?
$400 billion in Medicare cuts(again I assume over 10 years)? That’s a drop in the bucket. And why do I have a sneaking suspicion that these “cuts” are gonna get replaced by the cuts that have already been passed in order to fund Obamacare? $1.2 trillion in spending cuts and war savings? You mean we’re gonna gut the military and count savings for money that was never gonna be spent anyway? Terrific.
Like I said, let it burn. This is a sh-tty deal, but it’s doubtful the GOP can get anything better unless we go over the cliff and the Dems get panicky. I guess they’ll have to pass this garbage deal, sit back and watch the economy go into a deep recession, and then try to salvage the wreckage starting in 2015 after the Dems get massacred in the midterms.
Doughboy on November 29, 2012 at 9:06 AM
Lemme guess…
It’s shaped like a turd?
connertown on November 29, 2012 at 9:07 AM
Tax now, cut later.
Hey, here’s an idea. Use the Medicare money to fund Obamacare. NOT.
petefrt on November 29, 2012 at 9:08 AM
“Fiscal cliff” deal starting to take shape?
Yeah, it’s shaped like a giant Middle Finger,
and it is having Vaseline applied as we speak.
ToddPA on November 29, 2012 at 9:08 AM
Let it burn. Republicans should make sure that whatever deal Obama wants, he gets but that it would require ANOTHER debt ceiling limit increase before he leaves office.
Zaggs on November 29, 2012 at 9:11 AM
Charlie Brown is running toward the football, and Lucy is smirking.
Steve Eggleston on November 29, 2012 at 9:14 AM
Look, it’s real simple: we’re running a deficit of 1 to 1.2 trillion per year! Since the taxes get raised immediately by -wait for iiiiiiiit- 1.2 trillion, then it’s clear the dems want to close the gap solely by raising taxes. That is unacceptable. In the mean time, every single spending “cut” that is delivered over a ten year period will be cancelled out by future Congresses who are “compromising for the American people’; wealth will have been destroyed by higher tax rates causing the 1.2 trillion in tax revenue never to materialize; and Congress we will be right back where we are today only in a worse financial mess. By that time some other Democrat/socialist avatar will be promising that he’ll not raise taxes on the any one but the “rich”…a word that will be re-defined as anyone making $80,000 or more a year.
Weight of Glory on November 29, 2012 at 9:15 AM
Middle? I thought Obama was demanding $800 billion over 10 years?
forest on November 29, 2012 at 9:15 AM
It’s a turd shaped like a middle finger, and there’s no Vadeline on it.
Steve Eggleston on November 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM
Steve Eggleston on November 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM
More taxes, no less entitlement programs, piddly cuts. That about it?
MelonCollie on November 29, 2012 at 9:17 AM
That about says it all.
Weight of Glory on November 29, 2012 at 9:17 AM
Er, it’s a $1.2 trillion tax hike over 10 years, which pays for a bit over 10% of the projected $9 trillion deficits (from the same present-policy-extended baseline as I think the $1.2T tax hike comes from) over the next 10 years.
Of course, if it’s from the CBO “let-the-tax-rates-go-up” baseline, that turd middle finger is covering something very sharp and very hard, and it’s coming in sideways.
Steve Eggleston on November 29, 2012 at 9:22 AM
It’s a turd shaped like a middle finger, and there’s no Vadeline on it.
Steve Eggleston on November 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM
O U C H !!!!!!!
ToddPA on November 29, 2012 at 9:24 AM
How many times will the Stupid Party fall for the “tax hikes now, spending cuts later” con?
Answer: as often as they fall for the “amnesty now, enforcement later” con job.
Wethal on November 29, 2012 at 9:25 AM
He doubled that amount to $1.6 trillion after the election. I know, I’m shocked as well that he’d wait til after getting reelected to drop that bomb on us. I guess he figured the GOP would suddenly think $800 billion didn’t sound so bad(and actually, Boehner offered that back in 2011). $1.2 trillion is just gravy for Obama.
Yeah, but that $1.2 trillion tax hike would be over 10 years. An additional $120 billion a year(and that’s assuming no negative economic impact from those hikes which is a pipe dream) won’t do squat to lower the deficit. We’ll still be spending over a trillion a year more than we take in.
Doughboy on November 29, 2012 at 9:26 AM
The royals will make a deal, trade some land, and we go home.
If not, we charge.
Bishop on November 29, 2012 at 9:28 AM
I missed that in this article, because it’s not there. So my bad if the tax amounts are over ten years as well.
Weight of Glory on November 29, 2012 at 9:30 AM
Did you expect clarity from Politico?
Steve Eggleston on November 29, 2012 at 9:31 AM
Boehner is about to sign off on a deal of $3 dollars in tax hikes now in exchange for $1 dollar in spending cuts 10 years from now?
Let it burn.
Wethal on November 29, 2012 at 9:34 AM
Stop negotiating and just vote “present”. Even Ann Coulter is coming out in favor of this strategy — let them own it all.
The Rogue Tomato on November 29, 2012 at 9:35 AM
Heh.
Weight of Glory on November 29, 2012 at 9:36 AM
How much extra taxes will be needed to cover the coming student loan bailout.
These people aren’t serious.
Bishop on November 29, 2012 at 9:37 AM
The Royals are well known for making bad deals, they keep trading all their most promising players.
alwaysfiredup on November 29, 2012 at 9:37 AM
Whoo, what a sh*t sandwich.
Whatever, take the deal or just don’t oppose what Dems want (not sure what the difference is really) and let this mother burn.
John_Locke on November 29, 2012 at 9:40 AM
Oh… So the Republicans are gonna fall for the same trick like Reagan did in the 80s?
Time for a new party.
Skywise on November 29, 2012 at 9:42 AM
So, these measures really are a bridge to no where, right? I mean they don’t effectively address deficits since we are already $16 Trillion in the hole and from what I have seen no one has even addressed how that gets handled. If they are planning these measures to address future deficits, then is Congress saying the US will be running $25 Trillion in debt in 10 years?
How does this not burn down?
rsherwd65 on November 29, 2012 at 9:50 AM
Why has Paul Ryan been sidelined?
WisRich on November 29, 2012 at 9:57 AM
It’s worse than either 1986 or 1990 – it’s now, depending on whether entitlement “cuts” are counted as part of the $1.2 trillion in “cuts”, either 1.3-1 or 1-1 spending “cuts” to tax increases.
Steve Eggleston on November 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM
So we can get Bo(eh)ned again.
Steve Eggleston on November 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM
why do we even put up the pretense anymore? Two parties in name only
gatorboy on November 29, 2012 at 10:04 AM
Stop negotiating now. Make the Dems come up with a plan for once. And when they do, bring it up for a vote (GOP voting present).
besser tot als rot on November 29, 2012 at 10:07 AM
Nothing the current players could possibly do would matter.
The dems and the leftist press are concerned only with beating down the GOP, nothing else matters to them. The country be damned.
This is kabuki.
Akzed on November 29, 2012 at 10:23 AM
I think the problem is that the GOP may be afraid there won’t be a deal if they don’t capitulate. There have been more than a few Dems who’ve publicly stated they’re content to go over the cliff in order to gain even more leverage over Republicans.
Doughboy on November 29, 2012 at 10:42 AM
So Charlie Brown’s gonna fall for Lucy’s clever
ruse again?
FineasFinn on November 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM