The Obama-McConnell tax deal is expected to head from the Senate to the House today, with the big question being whether House Democrats have the temerity to amend the bill and risk a wholesale Republican abandonment of the process.
Senate defections on the key cloture vote were pretty limited: Ten Democrats (Bingaman, Brown, Feingold, Gillibrand, Hagan, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Sanders, Udall) and five Republicans (Coburn, DeMint, Ensign, Sessions and Voinovich). Steny Hoyer is hinting that House Democrats will be given an opportunity to support an amendment making the package more acceptable to progressives, but that a majority will be there for the original deal.
The estate tax provisions seem to be the real flashpoint for opposition from both sides, with Republicans objecting to the return of the “death tax” (even though under current law it’s due to resurrect itself at 2001 levels) and Democrats objecting to a relaxation in rates and exemptions benefitting a handful of the very rich without generating any positive impact for the economy. This is the sort of very basic difference of perspective on which compromise is probably impossible.
Meanwhile, two new public opinion surveys indicate pretty strong support for the deal across party lines.
According to Pew, 60 percent of Americans support the tax deal, while 22 percent disapprove. More interesting, an above-average 64 percent of self-identified conservative Republicans and 65 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats support the deal. A WaPo/ABC survey shows respondents favoring the package by a 69-29 margin, with support rising to 75 percent among self-identified Republicans and 68 percent among both self-identified Democrats and indies.
Interestingly, this survey shows narrow majority popular support for three enumerated parts of the deal—the UI extension, the two-year extension of the Bush income tax rates, and the new estate tax rates and exemptions—but 57 percent opposing the payroll tax holiday, generally considered the provision most likely to stimulate the economy. Breaking down these elements by party ID, the UI extension is the only provision gaining majority support among Democrats, Republicans, and indies, though the increase in the estate tax exemption comes close (with support from 52 percent of Democrats and 48 percent of indies). The whole package is generally more popular than its parts, which might indicate some support for bipartisan action as an end in itself.
Elite opinion is clearly on a track of its own. Aside from the strong opposition to the deal among many progressive opinion-leaders, which has resonated with House Democrats, conservative opinion is split, especially in the ranks of potential 2012 presidential candidates. Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich—two candidates who have most emphasized cultural as opposed to economic issues—have endorsed the deal. Mitt Romney, who has been burnishing his credibility with conservatives by taking a strong stand against ratification of the new START Treaty, came out against the tax deal today, arguing that temporary tax cut extensions would not reduce investor “uncertainty” and also calling for an overhaul of the entire UI system. Sarah Palin also expressed opposition to the tax deal, but without elaboration other than an attaboy for Jim DeMint, whose own opposition was motivate by the “unpaid-for” UI extension and the very existence of the “death tax.” Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthammer, and RedState’s Erick Erickson have also been outspoken opponents of the deal, mostly on grounds that this is not time for cooperation with Obama and Democrats. It’s probable that some conservatives privately oppose a deal on the additional grounds that the deadlock prevents congressional action on DADT and START until the new Congress takes office.
Right in the midst of this saga, conservatives have been significantly distracted by a federal district court ruling in Virginia that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. Two other federal district judges have ruled otherwise in parallel suits, and it’s obvious the whole issue will have to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. But conservatives are greeting the decision with high hosannas, presumably wanting to burnish the credibility of their arguments for a radically scaled-back interpretation of federal powers under the Commerce Clause. If the High Court does indeed embrace this interpretation, progressives will have a broader set of problems than the demise of ACA’s individual mandate; the constitutionality of a whole range of existing federal programs could be called into question.