As noted here, "With the White House and the lawmakers promising not to divulge details of the talks, the specifics of an eventual deal were not yet clear. "

Everything I've seen cites the "loopholes" Brooks (not exactly a tax and spend Democrat ) referred to thus: "The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives... merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary. "

Seems to depend on the terms in which we're speaking; Brooks says it will be "few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases" but also says Reid referred to a $3-4 trillion deficit reduction, consistent with the $4 trillion White House number I see referenced everywhere. My guess is that Dems are qouting their base the largest and Republicans are quoting their base the smallest plausible number, and whether it's a "few" hundred billion or $1.5-2 trillion depends on how far you project and how you weight the numbers; you know how projections are.

Again, details are sketchy since both sides are too busy bashing each other and the ONLY thing on which they've agreed is not publicly revealing details. HOWEVER, according to the above linked NYT article, "Among the proposals is an adjustment to the price index that measures cost-of-living increases, which would whittle [Social Security] payments to recipients over time. " Raising the Medicare retirement age is also reportedly being considered (we keep coming back to that, but probably should, and it's more attractive than simply phasing out the program). About a week ago I cited a proposal from Coburn and Lieberman to get about a half trillion from defence cuts (not entitlements (probably) but still spending), yet no mention of it since probably means it's not part of current negotiations.

At least $1.5 trillion if you accept the lowest amount Majority Leader Cantor claims Obama offered, after beginning a high as $1.8 trillion. The White House says that ever since the Biden debt reduction talks (that House Majority Leader Cantor torpedoed last month) it's agreed to $1.5 trillion and to go to bat with Congressional Dems for up to $200 billion more. That's probably what we'll get in the end: A $2 trillion bandaid rather than real deficit reduction; Obama rejected out of hand a one year deal that would force him to have this argument again while campaigning for a second term. As badly as the GOP has handled this that would probably be GOOD for Obama tactically, but it's not good for the country to leave the nations deficit and budget in limbo for another year, then make it something to do if there's time between campaign rallies.

I almost wrote a whole paragraph of broken Obama promises to his own base, but realized that's a tangent. There's a reason both sides have agreed to NOT publicly discuss details; most pundits agree that the impasse is as much about GOP leaders unwillingness to break the cast iron pledge against taxes they gave their base as actual unwillingness to have a tax increase: They made taxes a highly visible sacred cow and can no longer quietly slaughter it out of sight. Not to mention the fact that these kinds of contentious negotiations seldom happen in public anyway, a phenomenon alluded to at the end of this Time piece (which also references a few Medicare spending numbers Cantor discussed at his press conference ripping Obama, nondisclosure agreement or none).

Realistically, it sounds like Cantor's going to deliver for the GOP base, blocking attempts by his party AND the White House to get a $4 trillion dollar deficit reduction--just as he did a month ago. Perhaps Obama hasn't learned all the lessons of the healthcare debacle yet; he's realized that on the rare occasions GOP leaders are sincerely open to real compromise the same kinds of "special interests" that plagued Dem Congresses under Reagan make them impossible. However, he (still) doesn't seem to realize that farming out important policy negotiations to people like Reid or Biden makes the opposition think your demands aren't serious, and lets them get too deeply entrenched in their own to compromise. Obama acts like he can have subordinates do all the hardball negotiations until they can gain no more, then swoop in at the last minute to close the deal with gravitas. Maybe in Chicago, but not in DC; you don't last long in Congress if you roll over every time the Marines plays Hail to the Chief.

Whatever's hamstrung Obama though there's no way to get $4 trillion through entitlement cuts alone, because there's no way to really impact the federal deficit without cutting spending AND raising taxes; our mandatory spending eats over 90% of our revenue. The US public knows that, and so do both partys leaders, but GOP leaders have made ANY tax hikes so non-negotiable with their base that they've painted themselves into a corner (again, that's a great argument against public negotiations). That may be the real reason they want a temporary one year ceiling increase: So they can come back and accept tax hikes next year without (technically) breaking a promise to the base that only a madman would keep. Trouble is, there's an election next year and their base won't want tax hikes any more than now, they'll just be redoubling demands for the Ryan budget (the 2012 election is shaping up into a referendum on the Ryan budget, which is bad news for Republicans in general and Romney in particular). Republicans could well end up losing the battle AND the war through sheer obstinance and vitriol; I'd be thrilled about that if the risks to the nation weren't so dire and Obama had shown any signs of leadership.