By Carrie Dann, NBC News
President Barack Obama on Sunday said congressional Republicans and their insistence on preventing tax increases for the very wealthy are standing in the way of a deal to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff.
In an exclusive interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," the president chided House Republicans as the clock continued to run out on a potential agreement.
"They say that their biggest priority is making sure that we deal with the deficit in a serious way, but the way they're behaving is that their only priority is making sure that tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are protected," Obama said. "That seems to be their only overriding, unifying theme."
With a little more than one day remaining before the nation faces automatic spending cuts and tax hikes that could impact an already-wobbling American economy, the president implied that there has been little progress in recent days to justify hopes of a last-minute deal to prevent going over the fiscal cliff at year's end.
"I was modestly optimistic yesterday, but we don't yet see an agreement," he said in the interview, taped on Saturday at the White House. "And now the pressure's on Congress to produce."
The president appeared open to eliminating at least some of the scheduled automatic spending cuts if Republicans agree to tax increases for the wealthy. Those cuts are slated to impact defense spending and non-entitlement discretionary spending beginning on Jan. 1.
"If we have raised some revenue by the wealthy paying a little bit more, that would be sufficient to turn off what's called the sequester, these automatic spending cuts, and that also would have a better outcome for our economy long-term," he said.
The president challenged Republicans to vote on legislation that he said should be introduced by the Democrat-controlled Senate to prevent taxes on the "middle class" from being increased.
But he did not specify what income level he would be willing to accept as a dividing line between those who retain Bush-era tax rates and those whose rates would increase. The president has consistently supported increasing taxes on families making over $250,000 a year, but that figure has been a major bargaining chip in negotiations.
Wherever the line on tax increases ends up, Obama urged a vote in both houses on a final Senate bill if a broader agreement cannot be reached.
"Everybody should have a right to vote on that," he said. "If Republicans don't like it, they can vote no. But I actually think that there's a majority support for making sure that middle class families are held harmless."
"So far, at least, Congress has not been able to get this stuff done," he added. "Not because Democrats in Congress don't want to go ahead and cooperate, but because I think it's been very hard for Speaker Boehner and Republican Leader McConnell to accept the fact that taxes on the wealthiest Americans should go up a little bit, as part of an overall deficit reduction package."
Dismissing the notion that the Democratic Party is as compromise-averse as the GOP, the president said Democrats -- "warts and all" -- have more consistently agreed to components of bipartisan deals.
"What I'm arguing for are maintaining tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans. I don't think anybody would consider that some liberal left-wing agenda. That used to be considered a pretty mainstream Republican agenda," he said. "And it's something that we can accomplish today if we simply allow for a vote in the Senate and in the House to get it done. The fact that it's not happening is an indication of how far certain factions inside the Republican Party have gone where they can't even accept what used to be considered centrist, mainstream positions on these issues."
The president offered no new suggestions of compromise measures that may be more palatable to Republicans, although he acknowledged that some Democrats oppose entitlement adjustments and some of the spending cuts that he's put forward during negotiations.
"The offers that I've made to [Republicans] have been so fair that a lot of Democrats get mad at me," he said, noting that his acceptance of Chained CPI, a measure that would change the way Social Security payments are determined, has caused particular rancor within his own party.
"Highly unpopular among Democrats," he said of the proposed change. "Not something supported by AARP. But in pursuit of strengthening Social Security for the long-term I'm willing to make those decisions."
If an impasse remains in place, Obama warned, Republicans' rejection of his version of deficit reduction plans would be enough to send financial markets skidding.
"What's been holding us back is the dysfunction here in Washington," he said. "And if people start seeing that on January 1st this problem still hasn't been solved, that we haven't seen the kind of deficit reduction that we could have had had the Republicans been willing to take the deal that I gave them, if they say that people's taxes have gone up, which means consumer spending is going to be depressed, then obviously that's going to have an adverse reaction in the markets."
More takes on this morning's exclusive interview with President Obama:
- Associated Press: If cut, fiscal deal will pale against expectations
- Reuters: U.S. has good leads on who carried out Benghazi attacks: Obama
- NY Times: Obama Accuses Republicans of Blocking Tax Compromise
- WSJ: Obama Puts Pressure on GOP in Cliff Talks
- Washington Post: Obama: Gun control 'not something I will be putting off'
- USA Today: I won't put off gun legislation
- Politico: Obama targets GOP inaction on cliff
Leave a Comment:
If the purpose of Social Security is to keep seniors out of poverty, why does the president keep trying to sell us on the "strengthen Social Security by cutting it" idea? Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit! And you'll notice no politician even talks about "strengthening the Department of Defense by cutting it".
This is a cruel, unnecessary cut and voters wanted the Obama who claimed he would "protect Social Security and Medicare", not Mr. Placate Wall Street By Cutting Social Security. I think Wall Street has gotten quite enough from this president.
Susan, I'm not a math major but social security and medicare have to be looked at as a combined package. Just curious how a program that spends much more than it takes in can't be contributing to the deficit? And a program that returns to most of us much more that we contribute, I guess that's not contributing to the defict either. Everybody wants to keep everything, no one wants to reduce anything. Social security isn't and never was meant to be a person's sole retirement income support. At the rates we're spending, our kids and grandkids will have nothing. Who protects them? Time for all of us to take a hit and move on. Let's stop trying to find someone else's ox to gorge and all of us do what we know we should.
Bill, how many seniors do you think who had retirement income from IRAs had to cash them out to live on between the Wall Street crash in September 2008 and now? (at a 30% penalty, besides). Quite a few, I'd guess. Those folks probably now ARE living on their SS and if they're lucky, a small pension. Not EVERYBODY has a comfy 7-figure retirement package.
And not everybody works at a comfy desk job that allows one to expend excess energy at the local gym. Some folks work in construction, utility repair, farming, fishing, timber harvest, road-building -- and after 40 years, they are TIRED and their bodies are worn down -- they look forward to becoming eligible for SS retirement at age 65 (now 66 and 67 for some, thanks to a lot of desk jockeys in Washington DC).
I keep seeing neocons prattle on and on, over and over again, "at the rates we're spending, our kids and grandkids will have nothing..." -- but they never say, or admit, that corporate subsidies to multinational businesses that have profits in the billions already, or the incredible waste and fraud in the military-industrial complex, with their no-bid contracts and cronyism, are any part of the spending problem.
BTW, since both SS and Medicare were set up to be INVESTMENT programs, the amount we contribute earns interest sufficient to cover our eventual draw on the programs -- were it not for Congress raiding the SS fund 10 years ago, and allowing unregulated Big Pharma and Big Insurance to abuse Medicare funding (which is why they opposed single payer universal health care coverage). The best major fix to SS and Medicare would be to raise the $110,000 wage contribution cap (currently set at a level to capture 95% of wages. Because of the failure of wages to keep up with productivity, it only captures 90% now -- to bring it back to capture 95%, the cap should be raised to at least $250,000).
I'm glad you're offering to "take a hit". You can probably afford it. There are many folks who lost jobs in the past 4 years and cannot even find a living wage now who can't afford it -- and they're many years away from taking advantage of the retirement investment programs that you neocons like to call "entitlements".
BTW, the phrase is "ox to gore", not "ox to gorge".
Karen
The point is the Republicans had a plan that would take effect ten years out. Not immediately. The plan from the Democrats. Oh yes, they don't have one except to tax more people. And it will be a tax on anyone making 250K and less.
Missing: the executive order signed Thursday removing the salary freeze (implemented in 2010) and providing for pay hikes for federal workers, including Congress and the Vice-President. Rhetoric on both sides remains empty (and not confronting it means the media is complicit) when they can't split the difference on the tax issue but still spend more, and more, and more with no end in sight.
Yes, that was a THREE YEAR salary freeze for federal employees, which involved a lot more people than those in Congress. Your postal worker, for instance, and the security staff protecting those Congress people. The salary freeze lasted a year longer than the Social Security COLA freeze we seniors had to endure.
I'd be willing to bet that any raises federal employees can now get doesn't cover the rate of inflation any more than the 1.7% COLA we seniors will get in our Social Security checks come January.
Sure, focus your attention on a minute amount of salary increase for federal employees who don't make any more than the average middle class wage earner, or the fact that Congress is only a small percentage of those federal employees -- and ignore the wasteful spending on perks and subsidies for Big Pharma, Big Agra, Big Oil, Big Military Greed.
The Speaker is noting more than a whinning cry baby...I HATE HIM and I regret this past year of being a Republican. I voted for the President but I splitted my vote on those who can best serve THE PEOPLE. And if The Republican think that MARCO RUBIO is their answer they have a shock coming to them for if it's the last thing I do in my life and as a Rebuplican and Hispanic I will launch on my own the biggest campaign against Marco Rubio. He's a Punk with nothing else but Political ambition and wants to use His Hispanic Heritage to get there Hah! NOT! NOT IF I CAN HELP IT!
GETTING BACK TO THE SPEAKER: Congress just voted for a pay raise.... what odacity!!!!! All top level Government such as Congress, the House, etc not the worker bees of the government should take a pay cut NOT a pay hike. and have a TERM LIMIT...I'm sick and tired of these old cronnies and their do it my way or the highway attitude!
A full-plated discussion, but the issue of Gun Control continues to surprise me as the matter that jumps out after 27 people were killed at a Sandy Hook Elementary School. I am hoping that President Obama and VP Biden will cease and desist falling for the misdirectional play of Gun Control after a mass murder. What took these innocent people's lives was a lone gunman, according to published reports. The gunman, who because he had a gun killed 27 people, including himself. The lives of those lost, as is in any previous massacre of this nature, suggests very strongly that we have a problem in our society that refuses to be addressed: mental illness. Whether this person killed 27 people at one time, or one a time; or killed them at a political gathering as in the case of Congresswoman Gabby Gifford, a movie theatre, or the workplace, we have a problem with mental illness, and unforturnately, gun control continues to be THE misdirectional play of day. It's time the President to punt on Gun Control, and let those whose agenda it is, fight for it under a different banner. Instead, take a risk on mental health. Those who use guns in these type of cases, appear to be no different than those who die by hanging themselves, jumping off of bridges, or throwing themselves in front of trains. More lives are being taken now as in cases like Sandy Hook because we, as a society have closed off needed attention to those in apparent need (hospitals, clinics and treatment facilities), and now, this is how patients demand help. Mr. President, don't fall for the misdirectional play of Gun Control. There seems to be a call for help for those in need of mental health assistance, not only from the patients themselves, but families and communities as well. Please, don't just call for a fair catch in tragedies like these, run this play of mental health, and run it right up the middle. Take Gun Control off of the table.
Wanna bet the above screed was sent out via e-mail to Wayne Lewis Listings from the NRA? How much did they pay you to serve as their water-carrier, Wayne Lewis?
I was very disappointed with Mr. Gregory's interview with President Obama. There were no probing or insightful questions asked. Could Mr. Gregory have not asked why raising taxes on anyone is helpful now when it wasn't one year ago? Could Mr. Gregory have not asked what benefit raising taxes on people will have on the economy? Or whether the President agreed with the CBO report that these tax increases will cost the economy 200k jobs? Instead, Mr. Gregory asked about the politics or the process - those are utterly useless questions that do nothing to help us understand the state of our economy or the expected effect of implementing the President's solution. If I hadn't watched the interview this morning, I would have assumed it was a Saturday Night Live skit. A disgraceful example of modern journalism.
Millionaires (or anyone making over $250,000) isn't "anyone". It's a tiny but significant segment of taxpayer population that has lobbied successfully to hide assets under tax law, and doesn't adequately -- fairly -- pay back the advantages that living in and doing business in the United States affords them.
And it would have been helpful last year, and it would have been helpful the year before, and the year before. Wherever did you get the idea it wasn't?
RE: your ridiculous assertion,
<a href="">here's a counter-argument that's not from Fox News</a>:
Indeed, you seem to have little understanding of the state of our economy or the expected effect of implementing the President's solution.
Wow - what a dishonest post. Here is the link to the CBO analysis - No where does it say what you "quote" it as saying. More garbage. I'll let people do their own research since you cannot be honest with them. If raising taxes increased economic growth, France would be booming. Go back to reading Krugman.
Also, the person who last year said it would be unwise to raise taxes given the soft recovery we're having was ... President Obama. I'm still waiting for the President, you or anyone to explain what's changed. <crickets>
Gregory, the fake journalist, gives his democrat pals like Obama the questions in advance, and only ambushes republicans or conservatives. Gregory also considers himself above the law, not surprisingly. If you want to learn absolutely nothing, watch Gregory interview any liberal.
While I pride myself for being able to argue either side of an argument I was really surprised I ended up being the lone supporter of Obama's policy's at holiday gatherings with family and friends, young & older (many are lifetime Democrat's and I am not a strong Obama supporter but I like a good argument). The general consensus was that America is in a flat spin and both parties in Congress should be physically thrown out of the plane, Republicans first followed by the Dems in quick succession. They also agree Obama is one of the worst Presidents ever...re-elected only because he was the lesser of the 2 evils on the ballot. I was also surprised that not one person I talked with was for any kind of gun control.
Personally, I won't like the hit my stock portfolio will take but I think all of the taxes should go back to where they were except for the Capital Gains which need to be increased to match regular income taxes. (Just because someone plays the market does not make them a job creator).
While I lost my health insurance when I was down sized 2 years ago and my contract jobs do not pay insurance or PTO, I am lukewarm on Obama Care. I figure I will have to pay the fine because I will not be able to afford the coverage.
I also agree with the Supreme Court decision that the 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting or sport shooting. It is about our right to defend Our life and Our property! It is the pillar for the 1st Amendment!
No, the 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting or sport shooting. It's about a time in our country's history when we didn't have a standing army, and "our life and our property" in all the states had to be protected by a citizen militia -- one that was armed with one-shot muskets that had to be laboriously, primitively re-loaded. It was no wonder if men in the late 1700s and early 1800s owned more than one musket or flintlock pistol.
For some reason, though, right wing folks today, 200 years later, cannot admit that firearms today are more proliferative, and that some people who own them seem to ignore or forget or not even know basic firearm safety. And it's clear that some of those right wing folks think that their government is out to "get" them (which it sometimes does if they break the law in some difficult-to-ignore way).
Not to mention that a significant number of today's firearms are meant to kill people, lots of people, rapidly, and that's their only purpose. Ordinary citizens don't need guns of mass destruction.
George Henry,
OK, I'm with you.....let everyone go out and buy automatic 100 clip guns and carry them on their hips, both hips like Wild Bill Elliott used to do in the old westerns, out on the streets, in restaurants, in bars, in the supermarket, in the stores, in movie theaters in church, ANYWHERE.
And when someone has had one too many drinks and gets drunk and mean he can just pull out one or both of those guns and mow down everyone in sight and many more outside, next door and anywhere.
Let's just go for it. The best shots or the luckiest will survive. It will sure cut down on the overpopulation of this planet.
JUST KIDDING, OF COURSE......WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU PEOPLE NOT OFFERING OR SUPPORTING A BAN ON ALL GUNS AND CLIPS THAT TAKE OVER 6 BULLETS.
IF YOU CAN'T SHOOT SOMETHING IN 6 TRIES, YOU SHOULD BE DOING SOMETHING ELSE.
AND WILL SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME THE 'THRILL' OF SHOOTING AT AND KILLING OR WOUNDING INNOCENT ANIMALS? I THINK THAT IS JUST SICK. IF YOU BELIEVE, AS I THINK MOST SHOOTERS BELIEVE, IN GOD, HE PUT EVERYTHING ON THIS PLANET FOR A REASON. LARGER ANIMALS EAT SMALLER ANIMALS TO SURVIVE, BUT THEY DON'T JUST KILL TO KILL.
ONLY HUMANS KILL TO KILL, FOR NO REAL REASON.
Obama - telling watchers once again what he thinks they want to hear to keep everyone in his corner. He has caused a big part of the debt. We have less revenue coming in because of the unemployment rate in this country; he has wasted alot on green initatives, and increasing government to massive levels.
Obamacare will always hurt the middle class. If you want the rich to pay more, you have tax reform. You increase rates, it won't resolve Obama's spending problems. We were lied to when he said "your healthcare insurance will not go up". It has gone up every year since he implemented it with the worst yet to come. How do you pay for something when you have so many people out of work and less taxes coming in? Don't we still work for ourselves or is now that we work only for the US Government?
He continues to manipulate everyone to promote his agenda and they can't see that this man continues to say one thing and do another. His only goal is to promote himself, gain more power over the US, and use all for his desired end result. Why does everyone seem to think he has America's best interest at heart? Everything he has done is contrary to America's progress and stature in the world. He has created an unbelievable amount of debt and while most people assume you just print more money, confirms my beliefs. Several times he has told everyone what his plans are but we can't hear it, because we believe he is just like us. READ HIS AUTHORED BOOKS!!
Unfortunately, he has fooled enough people that have put him back in office to finish the ruination of our country. We are always taken off guard because we think everyone thinks like we do and this allows us to get hurt over and over. I suppose when the country is bankrupt, people are fighting in the streets, maybe just maybe, more people will pay attention and realize what they voted for. There are none so blind as those who cannot see and Obama counts on it!!
Are you Bill, Ed, Wayne Lewis or Chris, under another login name? More tired old right wing talking points.
I am just another person that has not been fooled by the Obama hype. I judge a person by his actions not what he says. You have no idea who this man is or what he stands for. Don't take my word for it. Research for yourself. That is what I have done. Not right wing - just right.
I suppose you think trying to do something with one hand tied behind your back means that you completely failed.
President Obama has tried to do more for more Americans in 4 years than President Bush ever though of in 8 years.
Give President Obama a level playing field with an opponent who will play by the rules and then judge him.
Cheryl, CALM DOWN, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU EXPOSE YOUR FIXED NEWS PERSPECTIVE ON EVERYTHING OBAMA.
Give him a Congress that will work FOR the American public not AGAINST Pres. Obama because they can't get over the fact that they lost TWICE to this man.
The majority of American public is smarter than all you Fixed News watchers. We all just proved it November 6.
Your health care has gone up because the HMO's have raised it. President Obama's Healthcare has hardly gone in to effect, and does so in steps. Come on girl, get your head out of that Koolade.
How many job bills or jobs have the Republicans voted for? NONE! WHY?
More jobs means more money coming in to the government and more people with money to buy things creating even more jobs. Why won't your GOP pass ONE JOBS BILL? JUST ONE to try to get this country going again, then we wouldn't need tax increases on the middle class. But the wealthy and the corporations.....YES, they need to pay more to the country that has allowed them to become wealthy.....that is unless daddy left it to you. Then you should STILL pay more. How much money does the wealthy really need to live on? How many cars can you keep in your garage, EVEN WITH AN ELEVATOR? How many homes can you live in and remember where things are or who the staff is? How many trips can you take around the world????????
Go take your meds. You are an embarrassment even to some Republicans.
Cheryl..., I see you're getting "Karen" posts with nothing to say other than you must be some right-wing blah blah blah. It's mind boggling how easily people can be deluded with the myth of free stuff.
Deficits do not matter has been a Republican mantra from Reagan to Bush 2. Lets face it...the only thing the 0.1% have not gotten their grubby hands on is Social Security. The Republican goal is to make gov. so unworkable and expensive that they can say the only way to fix it is privatization and we the people will just hand SS to Wall Street! Like 401K's, it is more money for them to play with. How much money does Wall Street make playing those bi-monthly transactions propping up the markets? Like clockwork it seems like we average 4 down days a week...the up day...when 401k money post? Look at the price you pay on your fund compared to the days before & after. Got your timing down yet? They have!
I was apalled by the dismissive comment by, I think, Mr. Browcaw that the $250,000K was not a high income when your consider that many American families have to pay for college education for their kids and supporting an aged parent. NOT HIGH?
The median income in the US is around $50K. Don't you think that these people have similar expenses? If you had a panel of pundits that only earned the median income, I bet that that they would immediatly support higher taxes on incomes over $100K.
Wealth inequality has made you, the panel and most of the "leaders" of this country blind to the real plight of the majority of citizens in this country.
At <15% tax rate on the gains!
It was amazing to me that out of a panel of one Republican and four left-leaning or non-partisan commentators, David Brooks was the most insightful. I could only stomach 10 out of 20 minutes of the discussion. The drivel about the President not being warm and fuzzy or not aggressively getting the sides together lacks a surprising amount of perception. The President is not the problem! Seriously, is it reasonable to acquiesce to the unreasonable demands of an irrational world-view based on unsubstantiated economic theories drawn from distorted conclusions about truth and reality? Some years ago the terms realistic, rational, and reasonable were used to describe the Republican Party. Now, it's the complete opposite. I stand with the President.
-
David,
WHEN are going to learn how to treat your guests respectively? Especially the President of the United States.
You kept interrupting him before he got his last words out of IMPORTANT statements he was trying to make!
It is common decency to allow someone to finish their remark before you blurt in with another question or comment. Let your guests make their point!
I've noticed this seems to be a policy of many MSNBC hosts, not all, but many, and it is very annoying and rude. You line these people up at the hall in Congress or to come in to the studio and then have 4 1/2 minutes to try to cover very important subjects and in order to do that you guys have to cut them off before they finish a comment to get to your next question or interject some ridiculous comment.
LET YOUR GUESTS TALK......FOR GOD'S SAKE.......AND DON'T TRY TO COVER SO MANY TOPICS WITH SO MANY GUESTS IN 4 /12 MINUTES.
MSNBC BOSSES.....ARE YOU LISTENING......YOU ARE INSULTING YOUR GUESTS AND THE PEOPLE TRYING TO WATCH THE SHOW AND ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING....OTHERWISE WE MIGHT AS WELL JUST NOT WATCH.
GEEZ...................
This interview again reminded me how much I miss Tim Russert. I can hardly stand to watch MTP with Gregory at the helm. Please NBC, can't you do better than this?
Tom Brokaw was a great newsman and a good political commentator. But he is not an expert on the economics of Social Security or Medicare. Raising the eligibility age for either of these two programs would unfairly hurt those not in the top 10% of the income spectrum. Many of the 'middle class' have worked at jobs where it is physically not possible for them to continue to work after the age of 65. Besides the life expectancy of these folks has NOT gone up nearly as much as it has for those of the income group that Mr. B belongs to. A much more FAIR way to do this would be to remove the income cap for Social Security taxes. That would mean that people who make more than $111,000 per year would continue to contribute to the pot for those who make less. Medicare already has means testing. IT should be strengthened even more. For more info on this read what Paul Krugman in the NY Times has written about it.
What Brokaw didn't mention was means testing. He or anyone on that panel has more money then they know what to do with. They shouldn't get SS or medicare.
As for getting correct information from Krugman, I wouldn't waste my time.
my comment is for tom brokaw on raising the retirement age of social security. come on tom people like you and the congress can "work', until the age of 100+ why because you just sit and make comments on others who actually work for a living. you just around and wait until someone gives you words to say and then you repeat them. think about the 65 year old who have to manually work back breaking work plus deal with health conditions. how arrogant. get out and get a manual labor job and then see if you have the same views on raising the retirement age.
This is on the comment from Tom Brokaw on raising the retirement age of social security retirees. It people like you and the "do nothing congress" who always want to raise the retirement age of people who actually work for a living. People like you can work to 100+ why because all you do is sit and wait until someone writes something for you to say and then you say it. If you had to do some hard manual work you would talk about how to lower it. People who work hard all their lives look forward to 65. How arrogant