Winner claims half of Powerball jackpot

Last month's $587.6 million jackpot was the largest in Powerball history Two winners from Missouri have already claimed their share of the prize Details about the Arizona winner are to be announced Friday evening (CNN) -- The second Powerball ticket holder in last month's record jackpot has come forward to claim winnings worth nearly $200 million before taxes, the Arizona Lottery said Friday. The $587.6 million jackpot from a drawing last month had a cash option of $384.7 million before taxes. The Arizona winner has opted to take cash, $192.5 million, before taxes. Details were to be announced at a news conference at 5 p.m., but the winner was not planning to attend. The winner's name will be made public, though, under rules of the lottery in Arizona. Two winners from Missouri claimed their half of the jackpot on November 30. The prize is considered income by the IRS, meaning that the highest federal tax rate of 35% will apply. Each winner would therefore owe $67 million to the IRS, said Mark Luscombe, principal analyst at tax research firm CCH, in an interview last month. State taxes will also apply. In Arizona, a resident who has the winning ticket will be charged a 5% tax on the prize money. If a non-resident bought the winning ticket, a 6% rate will apply. The resulting tax bill will be either $10 million or $11 million, according to CCH. Missouri charges residents and non-residents a 4% tax, making the tax liability there nearly $8 million. Taking both state and federal taxes into consideration means the Arizona winner would owe up to $78 million in taxes and take home $114 million. The Missouri winner's tax bill would total about $75 million, leaving a take of $117.5 million. However, in either case, the amount paid in state taxes could likely be deducted on the winners' federal tax returns, lowering the overall tax liability slightly.

Arctic spawns massive ice islands

As the Arctic warms, both glaciers and ice-shelves are launching floating islands into the sea that may threaten shipping, the fishing industry and off-shore oil and gas platforms. Scientists are only now beginning to research these ice islands and the rate at which they melt and divide. This ice fragment, nicknamed Berghaus by researchers at Carleton University in Ontario, broke off the Petermann Glacier near Greenland and wandered for a year before disintegrating. The surface of Berghaus looked almost lunar when it was photographed in the summer of 2011. Anna Crawford of Carleton University sets up instruments to measure thickness of an ice island. Mueller says that in 2011 alone, 3 billion tons of ice broke away from Canada's major ice shelves on the northern coast of Ellesmere Island. Here is one of the smaller ice islands drifting south. The largest was four times the size of Manhattan. One fragment of the Petermann Glacier was estimated to weigh 3.5 million tonnes. Greenland's glaciers and Canada's ice shelves are diminishing fast, scientists say Giant ice islands are breaking off, sometimes floating into shipping lanes Yet the number of icebergs surviving south of the 48th parallel has declined Scientists are just beginning to research the rate at which ice islands melt and divide (CNN) -- In mid-July this year, a roar echoed around one of the most remote inlets of northern Greenland -- and an island was born. No ordinary island, but a huge chunk of ice, roughly twice the size of Manhattan, that had broken from the Petermann Glacier. Scientists gave it the romantic name of PII-2012 and watched it begin to drift slowly into the Nares Strait, which separates Greenland from Canada. Then it began to break up, spawning several smaller ice islands. The birth of PII-2012 was no isolated event. The Petermann Glacier had lost a much larger chunk in 2010. It also broke into fragments, though that may not be the right word. One of them alone was estimated to weigh 3.5 billion tonnes, or metric tons (3.86 billion short tons), according to E. Julie Halliday, a researcher at Memorial University in Canada. Canada's ice shelves are also retreating fast. And as the Arctic warms, both glaciers and ice-shelves are launching floating islands into the sea that may threaten shipping, the fishing industry and off-shore oil and gas platforms. The air around northern Greenland and Ellesmere Island has warmed by about 2.5 degrees Celsius in the past 25 years. Ocean temperatures in the Arctic are also thought to have risen, though there is less data on them. Halliday noted in a paper presented at the Arctic Technology Conference in Houston last week that while "management of a 3.5 billion-tonne ice island away from offshore structures may theoretically be possible, putting it into practice would be logistically very challenging." Greenland: Secrets in the Ice -- Part 1 Greenland: Secrets in the Ice -- Part 2 Photographer captures glacial retreat Nye: Huge ice melt proves climate change One option, she said, would be to cover the surface of the ice island with carbon, which would accelerate its melting, but "the challenge then would become dealing with numerous smaller ice fragments as opposed to one large one." And even a small one could be the size of a football stadium. Scientists are only now beginning to research these ice islands and the rate at which they melt and divide, especially as the Arctic waters warm and the restraining effect of sea ice disappears. They have been using Autonomous Underwater Vehicles -- the undersea equivalent of surveillance drones -- to map the underside of ice islands. Uncovering the secrets of Greenland's ice After the 2010 "calving" from the Petermann, several fragments between them containing billions of tons of ice drifted south along the Labrador coast, interfering with shipping in the Strait of Belle Isle. One traveled 150 miles (240 kilometers) in just one week. Derek Mueller, a researcher at Carleton University in Ontario, has been following one 12 million-tonne fragment that was one of the progeny of the 2010 calving of Petermann Glacier. Nicknamed Berghaus, it was still wandering around a year later near Bylot Island in Baffin Bay before finally disintegrating in the fall of 2011. Mueller will be presenting his research at the ArcticNet conference in Vancouver next week. He says that in 2011 alone 3 billion tons of ice broke away from Canada's major ice shelves on the northern coast of Ellesmere Island. Mueller told CNN that that Canada's ice shelves have been diminishing for the past century. But the rate has accelerated dramatically in recent years, and today they are just half the size they were only seven years ago. As a graduate student, Mueller discovered a major crack in the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf in 2002. On a visit six years later he was surprised to see the shelf riven with fissures. Since then it has largely disintegrated. The Serson Ice Shelf measured some 120 square kilometers (46 square miles) until some 60% of it broke away in 2008. Now there's just 7 square kilometers left. "The ice shelves are on their way out," he told CNN. "In several decades they may be gone altogether." Ice islands may pose a greater threat than icebergs because they have a relatively shallow draft, Mueller says, which is often about 40 meters (130 feet). "This poses a significant risk to offshore platforms that are usually protected from massive icebergs by being situated in shallow waters," he said, especially as exploration for oil grows in areas such as offshore Greenland, and the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The same warmer temperatures that are encouraging the collapse of ice shelves are melting icebergs and ice islands before they reach the north Atlantic, according to the International Ice Patrol, a program led by the U.S. Coast Guard to protect shipping from the sort of disaster that befell the Titanic. In recent years the number of icebergs surviving south of the 48th parallel has declined, according to the Ice Patrol. Along with the decline in sea ice, the disappearance of ice shelves that are thought to be thousands of years old is rapidly changing the Arctic landscape. Ice shelves harbor surprisingly diverse collections of organisms in pools of sediment, organisms that might have value as enzymes capable of functioning in extreme cold and harsh light, Mueller said. They have also acted as a sort of barrier, protecting huge glaciers from exposure to warming waters. Now that the ice shelves are disintegrating, these glaciers -- which are up to 10 kilometers (6 miles) wide -- are thought to be melting more rapidly, and contributing to rising sea levels. Warmer temperatures in Greenland have led to widespread flooding in the southwest of the island as the ice sheet melts at rates unprecedented in the modern era. In the Scientific American blog last July, researcher Ben Linhoff wrote: "In the four years our camp has existed on this glacial river, more meltwater is spilling out from beneath Leverett Glacier than we've ever seen." Were that process to continue or accelerate, many scientists say, the anticipated rise in sea levels over the next few decades may have to be revised upwards. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in its annual Arctic Report Card, published this week, said dramatic melting of the Greenland ice sheet had occurred in July, "covering about 97 percent of the ice sheet on a single day." Martin Jeffries, co-author of the report, said on the NOAA website: "As the sea ice and snow cover retreat, we're losing bright, highly reflective surfaces, and increasing the area of darker surfaces -- both land and ocean -- exposed to sunlight. This increases the capacity to store heat within the Arctic system, which enables more melting -- a self-reinforcing cycle." All the evidence says that what in effect is the world's source of air conditioning is getting weaker, with consequences that will be felt far below the 48th parallel.

'My puppy saved my life' from SUV crash

The Wilson Post The SUV crashed into The Jewelers on Thursday, Dec. 6, in Lebanon, Tenn. A Tennessee man credited his newly adopted puppy with saving his life after an SUV smashed into his jewelry store this week. Police said a 66-year-old man had a coughing fit and hit the accelerator instead of the brake pedal Thursday morning, sending his Ford Expedition speeding into the front of The Jewelers on West Main Street in Lebanon, Tenn. No one was seriously hurt, but the owner, Shawn Smith estimated that the crash caused tens of thousands of dollars of damage. A witness, Tara Duncan of Lebanon, told The Wilson Post that the SUV flew right by her as she was entering her car to leave a store next door to The Jewelers. "The vehicle never stopped," she said. Smith told NBC station WSMV of Nashville that just beforehand, he'd been standing near where the SUV made its dramatic entrance. "I adopted a puppy this morning," Smith said, but it began barking, so he decided to take it home. "It was literally just two minutes before. "My puppy saved my life," he said. WSMV: Vehicle crashes into Lebanon jewelry store Watch the Top Videos on NBCNews.com Police ruled the incident an accident and said no charges would be filed. More content from NBCNews.com: Woman survives six days in snow eating tomatoes Shark bait? Rotting whale on Malibu beach raises fear Mormon church website: 'Sexuality is not a choice' 7 dogs rescued as police bust dog fight Video: Deaf twins hear for the first time Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

By Pete Williams, NBC News justice correspondent The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to take its first serious look at the issue of gay marriage, granting review of California's ban on same-sex marriage and of a federal law that defines marriage as only the legal union of a man and a woman. At the very least, the court will look at this question: When states choose to permit the marriages of same-sex couples, can the federal government refuse to recognize their validity?  But by also taking up the California case, the court could get to the more fundamental question of whether the states must permit marriages by gay people in the first place. The California case involves a challenge to Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment approved by 52 percent of voters in 2008.  It banned same-sex marriages in the state and went into effect after 18,000 couples were legally married earlier that year. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images file Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin of Oaklyn, New Jersey, holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the Supreme Court Nov. 30, 2012 in Washington, DC. A federal judge declared the ban unconstitutional, and a federal appeals court upheld that ruling, though on narrower grounds that apply only to California.  Now that the Supreme Court is wading into the battle, the justices could decide the more basic issue of whether any state can ban same-sex marriage under the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the law.  Or they could limit their ruling to apply only to the ban in California. Recommended: O'Malley touts same-sex marriage - with signing photo and 'contribute' button Nine states and the District of Columbia have moved to permit same-sex marriage or soon will -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington.  The Supreme Court also agreed Friday to hear a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, passed by overwhelming margins in both houses of Congress in 1996 and signed by President Clinton.  A provision of the law specifies that, for federal purposes, "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." Congress acted out of concern that a 1993 state court decision in Hawaii, which held that the state could not deny marriage licenses to same sex couples, might force other states to recognize gay marriage.  As it turned out, Hawaii did not adopt same-sex marriage. Because of DOMA, gay couples who wed in the nine states where same-sex marriage is permitted are considered legally married only under state law.  The federal government is barred from recognizing their marriages.  As a result, they are denied over 1,000 federal benefits that are available to traditional couples. After first supporting DOMA in court, the Obama administration concluded last year that it violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. "We cannot defend the federal government poking its nose into what states are doing and putting the thumb on the scale against same-sex couples," President Obama said in explaining the change. Recommended: In lame duck session, positioning begins for immigration debate in 2013 Gay married couples in five states filed lawsuits challenging DOMA as an unconstitutional denial of their right to equal protection.  After the Obama Justice Department declined to defend the law, House Republicans stepped in to carry on the legal fight. Defenders of DOMA argue that the law helps preserve traditional marriage. "Unions of two men or two women are not the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman. And only marriage between a man and a woman can connect children to their mother and father and their parents to the children," says Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage. A Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act would not, by itself, require states to allow same-sex marriages.  But the federal government would be required to recognize those marriages in the states where they are legal. The cases will be argued before the justices in March, with a decision expected by late June.

2nd winning ticket for huge Powerball pot claimed

By NBC News staff and wire reports The other winner of the $587.5 million Powerball jackpot has presented the winning ticket, The Arizona Lottery announced Friday. The winner "has declined participation" in a press conference later Friday, the lottery said in a statement, adding that "Arizona Lottery executives will provide details about this historic win." The winner's name will eventually become public, however, under the lottery rules in Arizona. The jackpot was the largest in Powerball history, with a cash option of $384.7 million before taxes. It is being shared with Mark and Cindy Hill, who claimed their prize on Nov. 30. The Missouri couple took the lump sum payment of $136.5 million after taxes. The Arizona winner also elected to take the cash option, the lottery stated. Earlier, some media speculated that a man in Maryland might have won the other half of the jackpot. Cindy Hill,  the matriarch of the Missouri family who half the record $580 million Powerball jackpot, and her children talk about their new life as millionaires. More content from NBCNews.com: Woman survives six days in snow eating tomatoes Shark bait? Rotting whale on Malibu beach raises fear Mormon church website: 'Sexuality is not a choice' 7 dogs rescued as police bust dog fight Video: Deaf twins hear for the first time Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Outrage on social media over prank

The 2Day FM Facebook post about the prank has been removed. Radio hosts blamed after nurse commits suicide Twitter accounts, Facebook posts for DJs deleted after stunt The hashtag #royalprank had trended shortly after the radio stunt (CNN) -- One of the nurses duped by a prank phone call about Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, committed suicide on Friday, and many social media users were quick to point fingers at the two radio hosts who made the call and then promoted it on Facebook. Australian radio station 2DayFM posted audio of the prank call on its Facebook page Wednesday with the caption, "Listen to the prank that the world is talking about. Can you believe Mel and MC got away with these dodgy accents?" The hashtag #royalprank was retweeted more than 15,000 times on Twitter after the radio station began promoting the call. It continued to be used after news of the nurse's death. Catherine, the pregnant wife of Britain's Prince William, had been hospitalized with severe morning sickness. The prank became worldwide news as the nurse, believing the DJs were Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles, forwarded the call to a second nurse who eventually revealed details of the former Kate Middleton's condition. Concerns over privacy and the media, which had surfaced in England during the News of the World scandal and again when topless photos taken of Catherine were published, were quickly reignited. But Prince Charles himself joked about the incident after being contacted by the radio station. News of the prank was also widely shared on social networks, with at least 5,000 links created and shared between Tuesday and Thursday. At the time, royal commentator Robert Jobson said he did not believe the radio call had been intended as a serious invasion of privacy. The hospital identified the nurse as Jacintha Saldanha. As news of her death spread, commenters flooded the 2DayFM Facebook page. A user named Gary Dawson posted, "Shame for still having this sick call on website!! Shame on the DJs and shame on the radio station." At 10:54 a.m. ET, 700 comments had been posted since Wednesday. By 11:15 a.m. ET, the number had risen to more than 1,100 and was still growing rapidly. The Facebook page Hot30 Countdown, also used to promote the two DJs, did not have a post about the prank, but that didn't stop people from commenting there. The 2DayFM posts, including the audio of the prank, were deleted by 11:41 a.m. Although it is unclear what scrutiny Saldanha had been under since the prank, the hospital said in a statement that it had been supporting her. Neither police nor the hospital publicly blamed the radio station for Saldanha's death. At St. James's Palace, a spokesman said, "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are deeply saddened to learn of the death of Jacintha Saldanha." The Twitter account for radio host Michael Christian (@MContheradio) had included five updates about the prank in the past 12 hours on Friday morning. By 11:22 a.m., the account had been deleted. The account for co-host Mel Greig (@MelGreigHot30) was also deleted. The station and its parent company, Southern Cross Austereo released the following: "Chief Executive Officer Rhys Holleran has spoken with the presenters, they are both deeply shocked and at this time we have agreed that they not comment about the circumstances. SCA and the hosts have decided that they will not return to their radio show until further notice out of respect for what can only be described as a tragedy." On one extreme, online audiences believed the radio station should lose their broadcast license and the two DJs should be punished. But there were also calls for a step back from the immediate tragedy. "Do you know why patriots like myself defend this kind of speech until my dying breath?" posted a CNN commenter. "To find that answer, ask yourself this: Who decides what kind of speech is appropriate or inappropriate? Who decides what kind of speech is offensive or not? What if you have the power to decide? At what point does an opinion that differs from yours become offensive to you? And what will be the penalty for my supposed offense? "We can never afford to go down the road if defining right speech from wrong speech. It throws everything else into doubt and opens the doorway for tyrants and the fringe to persecute those who are not like minded. "The nurse, for whatever personal reasons she might have clearly over-reacted. It is sad. But that is all it is. Nobody should be prosecuted or penalized over this." Others fired back, arguing that not all speech is protected and that no one has immunity from the negative effects of reckless actions. Still others said the discussion was pointless, since "Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights" "Here's a social experiment for you," wrote James Breen on the Hot30 Countdown page. "Try treating people with common decency and respect."

Fiscal cliff: What they're not saying

House Speaker John Boehner accuses President Barack Obama of wasting time Democrats say Repubican intransigence is holding up progress Neither side will talk publicly about a possible compromise on tax rates The fiscal cliff of tax hikes and spending cuts is less than four weeks away Washington (CNN) -- In the Groundhog Day world of fiscal cliff posturing, with both sides repeating the same arguments over and over, what isn't said often tells more than the spoken word. House Speaker John Boehner on Friday criticized President Barack Obama for the umpteenth time for not responding to the latest Republican proposal, saying White House inaction wasted time with the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts of the fiscal cliff looming. "This isn't a progress report because there is no progress to report," Boehner told reporters at a news conference to end a week in which the House went home early. "When it comes to the fiscal cliff that is threatening our economy and threatening jobs, the White House has wasted another week." What Boehner didn't say, when questioned by reporters, was whether there was room for compromise on Obama's demand for increased tax rates on high income earners while extending current rates for most Americans. Boehner and Republicans reject any increase in tax rates, but have agreed that increased revenue from tax reform such as eliminating some deductions and loopholes should be part of a comprehensive deficit reduction package. Asked Friday if the higher tax rate that would be assessed on income over $250,000 for families under Obama's plan could be negotiated, Boehner at first ignored the question and then avoided a direct answer. "There are a lot for things that are possible to put the revenue that the president seeks on the table, but none of it's going to be possible if the president insists on his position, insists on 'my way or the highway,'" Boehner said. Obama and the White House also have avoided answering questions about whether they would accept a lower rate on the top income bracket than the 39.6% that would take effect if Obama gets his way, or if no deal is reached. The current rate is 35%, and one path to a deal suggests a compromise at around 37% that would allow Obama to say he got more revenue from the wealthy while giving Republicans a concession. In an interview with Bloomberg TV this week, Obama also hinted at a possible long-range solution, saying lower tax rates for the wealthy could be negotiated as part of broader tax reform in 2013, but only after those rates increase now. With both sides agreeing the wealthy will pay more, the fiscal cliff talks come down to how much Republicans can wring out of the White House in return for giving in on taxes. To Obama, it's all about first locking in additional revenue from the higher tax rates on the wealthy, an outcome the GOP has long rejected. Republicans led by Boehner want to secure commitments on entitlement reforms and spending cuts opposed by Democrats as part of a broader agreement to reduce the nation's chronic federal deficits and debt. Boehner confirmed Friday that talks between staff members on both sides resumed Thursday for the first time this week, after he and Obama spoke by phone the day before. However, the Ohio Republican said nothing came out of the discussions. "The phone call was pleasant but was just more of the same," he said. "Even conversations that the staff had yesterday, just more of the same. It's time for the president, if he's serious, to come back to us with a counter offer." House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi rejected Boehner's characterization of the talks, telling reporters on Friday that the Republican leadership was responsible for the chamber being in session "barely a full day this week." She also said the continued GOP refusal to accept higher tax rates on the wealthy means "we will never have the revenue necessary to combine with the savings and with the spending cuts to reduce the deficit, to create jobs, to grow the economy, to improve the lives of the American people." It remains unclear if a deal will happen before the end of the year -- less than four weeks away -- or if the negotiations will carry over into 2013 after the fiscal cliff of automatic tax hikes and spending cuts takes effect. While economists warn that going over the fiscal cliff could lead to a recession, the administration has signaled it can delay some of the impacts to allow time to work out a deal. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that middle class families would pay about $2,000 a year more in taxes without action. All signs point toward a two-step approach sought by the newly re-elected Obama -- an initial agreement that would extend lower tax rates for income up to $250,000 for families, while letting rates return to higher levels from the Clinton era on income above that threshold. Republicans opposed to any new revenue in their quest to shrink government now realize Obama's victory and public support for the president's campaign theme of higher taxes on the wealthy leave them with little negotiating leverage. A new poll Thursday was the third in recent days to indicate most Americans accepted raising taxes on incomes over $250,000 as part of a fiscal cliff deal. The Quinnipiac University national survey showed 65% of registered voters support higher taxes on the wealthy, though Republican respondents were opposed,53% to 41%. Also, a Washington Post/Pew Research Center survey released Tuesday showed 53% of respondents would blame Republicans for failure to reach a deal, compared with 27% who would blame Obama. A CNN/ORC International poll released last week showed 45% would blame congressional Republicans compared with 34% who would hold Obama responsible. Retiring Republican Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio told CNN that he sensed a shift in the House GOP approach during a conference meeting on Wednesday. "The sense was that there's a growing number of folks in our party that are saying, 'You know what, the president has won this round relative to the rates, but we need to you to sit down and get the second half of the deal and that's the spending,'" LaTourette said. Even conservatives like Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal acknowledge the obvious -- that taxes on the wealthy are going up despite opposition by Republicans. "Whatever deal is reached is going to contain elements that are detrimental to our economy," Jindal wrote Thursday in an opinion piece published by Politico. "Elections have consequences, and the country is going to feel those consequences soon." At the same time, Jindal wrote, "Republicans certainly should fight to at least get something done that will matter." "At present, any reading of the headlines over the past week indicates that Republicans are fighting to protect the rich and cut benefits for seniors," he added. "It may be possible to have worse political positioning than that, but I'm not sure how." Coburn, a well-known fiscal hawk, told MSNBC on Wednesday that he would support higher tax rates on wealthier Americans as part of a broader deal to avoid the fiscal cliff and broader deficit crisis. "I know we have to raise revenue," Coburn said. "I don't really care which way we do it. Actually, I would rather see rates go up than do it the other way, because it gives us a greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future." Despite the public stance softening of some Republicans in each house, signs point to a continuing standoff for now. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell warned Thursday that his party will continue to use the federal debt-ceiling issue as leverage to extract concessions on spending cuts from Democrats, a tactic that Obama opposes. "The only way we ever cut spending around here is by using the debate over the debt limit to do it," McConnell said in response to Obama's call for removing the issue from political negotiation. At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney said such brinksmanship over a matter involving a possible unprecedented government default was opposed by the business community and the American public. "I can't imagine they would want to do that," he said of Republicans. After meeting with his conference Wednesday, Boehner told reporters that the rich will be paying more, but he still hoped to limit any increase to ending tax deductions and loopholes rather than Obama's demand for higher rates. Obama, however, continued to insist that Republicans must agree to higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans before working out a broader deficit reduction deal. The president demands that the House immediately pass a measure already approved by the Senate to extend tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 on income up to $250,000 for families. He contends that both Democrats and Republicans agree that the 98% of American families making less than $250,000 a year should avoid a tax hike when the lower rates from the Bush administration expire on December 31. They call for the House to guarantee that outcome by passing the Senate measure now. Once that happens, Obama and Democratic leaders promise, they will work out compromises on other spending cuts sought by Republicans to reduce the deficit, such as reforms to the Medicare and Medicaid entitlement programs. The broader deficit reduction plan from the president would increase tax revenue by $1.6 trillion over 10 years through the higher rates on the wealthy as well as closing loopholes, limiting deductions, raising the estate tax rate to 2009 levels and increasing tax rates on capital gains and dividends. Under it, $500 billion would come from limiting itemized tax deductions and other benefits for high-income earners. A 28% limit on deductions would apply to families earning more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000, according to the White House. The Obama plan also includes $50 billion in stimulus spending for programs intended to create jobs, such as repairing roads and bridges. In response, House Republicans offered a plan that they said could reduce federal deficits by $2.2 trillion over 10 years. The GOP proposal includes $800 billion from tax reform, $600 billion from Medicare reforms and other health savings and $600 billion in other spending cuts, House Republican leadership aides said. It also pledges $200 billion in savings by revising the consumer price index, a measure of inflation. While the Republicans gave ground by calling for more revenue through tax reform, the plan mentioned only unspecified elimination of some deductions and loopholes. CNN's Deirdre Walsh, Ashley Killough, Jessica Yellin, Paul Steinhauser, Dana Bash and Ted Barrett contributed to this report.