Yesterday afternoon, Boehner released a fiscal cliff negotiations counter-offer (pdf). Suzy Khimm provides bullet points on the plan. How Suderman understands the offer:
Both opening bids are best understood as positioning statements rather than actual stabs at putting together a viable deal. They tell you as much about how the parties want to be percieved than they do about what might actually make up the substance of an eventual agreement: Obama wants to be seen as strong. Republicans want to be seen as reasonable. Whether either side actually lives up to the way they want to be percieved remains to be seen.
Jonathan Cohn prefers the cliff to Boehner's proposal:
The risks of going over the fiscal cliff are real, which is why Obama and the Democrats should keep trying for a deal. And if Obama and Democrats are determined to extract concessions like extensions of unemployment insurance, as they should be, they're going to have to make some concessions of their own—particularly if Republicans opt for a "doomsday plan" and preemptively concede on tax cuts on middle incomes. But Obama and the Democrats can do better than what Boehner offered on Monday. A lot better.
Josh Barro analyzes the plan:
[T]he $1.2 trillion in "sequestration" spending cuts wouldn't be averted; instead they would apparently be replaced by other cuts to entitlement programs and discretionary spending. While mandatory spending cuts (such as a Medicare age increase) would likely be backloaded by design, Republicans need to make clear that they are willing to backload the discretionary spending cuts, too; otherwise, they will constitute a near-term austerity measure.
Barro later criticized the White House's fiscal cliff priorities. Ezra Klein envisions a possible compromise:
Boehner is now at $800 billion in revenues, and the White House is at $1.6 trillion. If the two sides end at $1.2 trillion, that would be about what most in Washington are expecting. Similarly, Boehner is at $900 billion in mandatory spending cuts, and Obama is at $600 billion. if the two sides end at $750 billion, that wouldn’t be such a surprise.
Kevin Drum notices something important:
[E]very news account of Boehner's proposal says that it includes (a) an increase in the Medicare eligibility age, and (b) a change in the way inflation is calculated, which would reduce Social Security benefits. But neither of those things is in the letter he sent to President Obama. So where did they come from? The answer, apparently, is from anonymous GOP aides on background. And if that's the case, it should have been clearly reported that way. Because that's not a proposal at all, it's a way of pretending to make a proposal that can be disavowed and denied at any time if it becomes inconvenient.
John Hinderaker wishes the plan had more punch:
The biggest problem with the House’s gambit is that the GOP proposal is so unmemorable. Everyone knows what Obama’s position is: close the deficit by raising taxes on the “rich.” Of course, those who are at all knowledgeable realize that we don’t have anywhere near enough rich people for that to work. But most people, living in blissful ignorance, probably think Obama’s position makes some kind of sense. How does one sum up the GOP’s position? As set forth in today’s letter it is not, to say the least, catchy.
Scott Galupo's view:
Officially, Republicans are not opposed to new revenues per se; it’s precisely how they’re raised that accounts for the stalemate in Washington. Capping tax deductions and eliminating loopholes is kosher — but hiking rates will disincentivize productivity and job creation. If that’s not the case — or if “many in the GOP” don’t believe it’s truly the case — then what are we arguing about? We’re arguing about entitlement spending. Republicans will give in to President Obama — reluctantly, kicking-and-screamingly — on the top tax bracket, but they want substantive entitlement reforms in return, and they want bipartisan, Bowles-ian cover as part of the bargain.
And Jared Bernstein claims this is "far from a serious offer":
I get that they didn’t like what the President brought to the table, but at least it was a coherent, detailed plan, largely derived from his 2013 budget. I expected their counteroffer to contain things D’s won’t like. But this isn’t a real offer. At some point, the R’s are going to have to actually say, with specificity, what they’re for. Those of us who want to see this calamity resolved anxiously await such a real offer.
(Photo: Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) listens to President Barack Obama speak before a budget meeting at the White House with other cabinet members on November 16, 2012 in Washington, DC. By Toby Jorrin/AFP/Getty Images)
The Dish 