Fair
45°
St. Charles, IL
Fair|Forecast »

Obama: Cliff deal in sight, but no votes in House tonight

Text Size: AaAaAaAaAa

(Continued from Page 2)

Instead of delaying the cuts for two years, at a cost of more than $200 billion, Republicans suggested delaying the sequester for three months — at a cost of $33 billion, according to people close to the talks. It was unclear Monday whether the hang-up was the brevity of the extension or the need to identify offsetting spending cuts.

All told, the proposal would raise roughly $600 billion in new revenue over the next decade from the wealthiest 2 percent of households — less than Obama had been seeking, and less than House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had offered in negotiations earlier this month. But the new tax revenue was a first step, Democrats said, toward asking the wealthy to do their part in reducing record budget deficits.

In his remarks in the South Court Auditorium of the White House with a contingent of middle-class Americans standing behind him, Obama highlighted progress in the fiscal cliff talks by noting that "just last month Republicans in Congress said they would never agree to raise tax rates on the wealthiest Americans." He continued: "Obviously, the agreement that's currently discussed would raise those rates, and raise them permanently."

But he warned that "we still have deficits that have to be dealt with," and he stressed that tax hikes represent only one part of the fiscal cliff.

"I want to make clear that any agreement we have to deal with these automatic spending cuts that are being threatened for next month, those also have to be balanced," Obama said. "And that means the revenues have to be part of the equation in turning off the sequester and eliminating these automatic spending cuts."

He added: "Now, if Republicans think that I will finish the job of deficit reduction through spending cuts alone ... that will hurt seniors, or hurt students, or hurt middle- class families without asking also equivalent sacrifice from millionaires or companies with a lot of lobbyists, et cetera, if they think that's going to be the formula for how we solve this thing, then they've another think coming. That's not how it's going to work. We've got to do this in a balanced and responsible way. And if we're serious about deficit reduction and debt reduction, then it's going to have to be a matter of shared sacrifice."


Reader Poll

Do you agree with the Boy Scouts' decision to accept gay Scouts but not gay Scout leaders?

Yes, it is appropriate
Both gay Scouts and Scout leaders should be accepted
Neither gay Scouts nor Scout leaders should be accepted
I have no opinion