President Looks
for Broader Deal on Deficit Cuts
Published: July 6, 2011 - New York Times
WASHINGTON — Heading into a crucial negotiating session on a budget deal on
Thursday, President
Obama has raised his sights and wants to strike a far-reaching agreement on
cutting the federal deficit as Speaker John
A. Boehner has signaled new willingness to bargain on revenues.
Mr. Obama, who is to meet at the White House with the bipartisan leadership
of Congress in an effort to work out an agreement to raise the federal
debt limit, wants to move well beyond the $2 trillion in savings sought in
earlier negotiations and seek perhaps twice as much over the next decade,
Democratic officials briefed on the negotiations said Wednesday.
The presidentfs renewed efforts follow what knowledgeable officials said was
an overture from Mr. Boehner, who met secretly with Mr. Obama last weekend, to
consider as much as $1 trillion in unspecified new revenues as part of an
overhaul of tax laws in exchange for an agreement that made substantial spending
cuts, including in such social programs as Medicare
and Medicaid
and Social
Security — programs that had been off the table.
The intensifying negotiations between the president and the speaker have
Congressional Democrats growing anxious, worried they will be asked to accept a
deal that is too heavily tilted toward Republican efforts and produces too
little new revenue relative to the magnitude of the cuts.
Congressional Democrats said they were caught off guard by the weekend White
House visit of Mr. Boehner — a meeting the administration still refused to
acknowledge on Wednesday — and Senate Democrats raised concerns at a private
party luncheon on Wednesday.
House Democrats have their own fears about the negotiations, which they
expressed in an hourlong meeting Wednesday night with Treasury Secretary Timothy
F. Geithner.
gDepending on what they decide to recommend, they may not have Democrats,h
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, said in an interview. gI
think it is a risky thing for the White House to basically take the bet that we
can be presented with something at the last minute and we will go for it.h
Officials said Mr. Boehner suggested that he was open to the possibility of
$1 trillion or more in new revenue that would be generated by addressing tax
issues already raised in the talks, like killing breaks for the oil and gas
industry, eliminating ethanol subsidies and ending preferential treatment for
corporate jets.
But those changes would fall far short of the revenue goal, and the source of
the rest of the money would, under what they described as Mr. Boehnerfs
proposal, be decided by Congress through a review of tax law changes. One
official said some revenue could be generated by allowing Bush-era
tax cuts for affluent Americans to expire at the end of 2012, which would
produce hundreds of billions of dollars, though those savings would be offset by
the costs of retaining lower rates for those below the income threshold.
Aides to Mr. Boehner said that no tax increases were on the table and that he
had not agreed to the expiration of any tax cuts.
One source familiar with the talks said the speaker had put forward options
on how to proceed, including making a commitment to a tax code overhaul that
would lower rates while closing loopholes, ending deductions and instituting
other changes to generate substantial new revenue. Mr. Boehner has in the past
pushed tax simplification as a way to help the economy.
Democrats were distrustful of Mr. Boehnerfs idea, saying such an approach
raises the prospect that future tax and revenue changes could be blocked by
Republicans after Democrats had already agreed to the detailed cuts. They sought
assurances that all the elements of any budget deal would be enacted
simultaneously.
gWe want as robust a deficit reduction deal as possible,h said David Krone,
chief of staff to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, who would
serve as point man for moving any agreement through the Senate. gBut it has to
be balanced between spending and revenues, in terms of timing, specificity and
dollars.h
Democrats are not just worried about the substantial policy issues at stake;
they are also concerned about the political implications of any deal as they try
to hold control of the Senate next year and win back the House.
To the degree that any deal wins bipartisan support on slowing the growth of
Medicare, for example, it would deprive Democrats of what has been one of their
most potent arguments heading into 2012: their assertion that Republicans would
gut the traditional Medicare system and leave older Americans vulnerable to
rapidly rising health care costs.
Faced with the prospect that the federal government would default on its
credit obligations, Democrats might indeed be cajoled into backing an agreement
they did not strongly support. But at the moment, there is substantial private
and public grumbling about what looms ahead.
Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, urged the president not to
yield to Republican demands to reduce the deficit by cutting hundreds of
billions of dollars from Medicare, Medicaid and other domestic spending. He said
that gthe president has got to demand that at least 50 percent of deficit
reduction come from revenues,h including higher
taxes on the wealthy and large corporations.
At the same time, Representative Eric Cantor, the Virginia Republican and
majority leader, said Wednesday that he would not accept any net increase in
federal revenues, and that any money raised from eliminating tax breaks or
loopholes must be offset by cuts elsewhere in the tax code.
gIf the president wants to talk loopholes, wefll be glad to talk loopholes,h
Mr. Cantor said. gWe have said all along that preferences in the code are not
something that helps economic growth over all. But, listen, we are not for any
proposal that increases taxes. Any type of discussion should be coupled with
offsetting tax cuts somewhere else.h
White House officials acknowledge the unrest among Democrats. But they argue
that Democrats will be in stronger shape politically heading into November 2012
if they help enact a credible deficit reduction deal, allowing them to mount the
argument that they protected Medicare from a much more drastic overhaul by
Republicans.
In contrast, they say, failure to produce an agreement could bring
unpredictable and unfavorable economic and political consequences.
The officials are convinced that a larger package — one that would demand
deeper cuts and more taxes but put the nation on a sounder fiscal footing for a
decade or longer — is more politically palatable than the $2 trillion-plus
package that was being cobbled together in talks presided over by Vice President
Joseph R. Biden Jr.
And not all Democrats see the push for a major package as a negative.
gWe donft need a minideal,h Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2
Democrat, said Wednesday on the Senate floor. gWe need something that speaks
authoritatively to the world that the United States understands its deficit
challenge and is prepared to make the hard choices to address it.h
Robert Pear contributed
reporting.