Rasmussen poll shows 56% in favor of tax deal

posted at 10:55 am on December 9, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Rasmussen appears to have the first national poll on the tax deal between Barack Obama and the GOP, and so far, it’s a hit — especially among Republicans.  More than two-thirds of GOP voters support the deal, while only a plurality of Democrats do the same.  A slight majority of independents agree:

Most voters like the tax cut deal President Obama made with congressional Republicans.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the agreement that extends the Bush tax cuts for all Americans for two more years, cuts the Social Security payroll tax rate for one year and renews long-term unemployment benefits for an additional 13 months. Just 29% oppose the deal, but 15% are not sure about it. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters say the agreement will be good for the economy while just 28% disagree and think it will be bad for the economy. Nine percent (9%) say it will have no impact, and 14% more are not sure.

Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans and 51% of unaffiliated voters favor the tax cut agreement. A plurality of Democrats (48%) share that view but 38% of those in the president’s party are opposed.

These numbers show that the progressives are increasingly isolated on this question — and they’re split as well, almost equally between support (43%) and opposition (41%).  Continued vocal opposition to the compromise will weaken their standing with the voters, at least in the short run, and they’re not exactly dealing from strength after the midterm beating anyway.

Rasmussen conducted the poll over the last two days, when the debate was raging at its hottest on both sides.  Eighty-five percent of respondents had followed the coverage, and 56% followed it “very closely.”  The level of engagement in a post-election Christmas environment seems exceptional, especially on wonkish economic policies.

The poll will give Obama a little more ammunition for keeping recalcitrant Democrats in line during the vote.  However, it also underscores that the widespread perception is that Republicans won a big victory with this deal — a perception helped in large part by the President’s temper tantrum while announcing it.  Perhaps if Obama had bothered to sell the deal rather than whine about “hostage takers” and make his defeat obvious, he wouldn’t have to work so hard for his own party’s support now.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Still need to keep the death tax from happening, that should have been a non-starter.

Bishop on December 9, 2010 at 10:59 AM


These numbers show that the progressives are increasingly isolated on this question — and they’re split as well, almost equally between support (43%) and opposition (41%).

43% of Progs agree with anything Obama says or does.

Tony737 on December 9, 2010 at 11:01 AM

This poll would have been more valid if they had first weeded out the 47% that pay no federal income tax.

NoNails on December 9, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Still need to keep the death tax from happening, that should have been a non-starter.

Bishop on December 9, 2010 at 10:59 AM

The fact is that elimination of it simply wasn’t in the cards.

But with a $5 million exemption, even most small business owners and family farms won’t have to worry about it. Most people above that exemption will have the means to avoid most of the tax. Some people will still be affected by it, but nowhere near the number that have been in the past, and especially nowhere near the number who would have been affected if nothing at all had been done.

JohnGalt23 on December 9, 2010 at 11:07 AM

If they would bring it to a vote with no more strings attached it would be fine. As soon as they start playing give-away with it it becomes another tit for tat piece of crap.

fourdeucer on December 9, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Just where is the practical cutoff point for ending unemployment benefits? We know now, it’s not two years, not even three if this bill gets passed. How about five years, or ten? This nonsense has to end.

Why are Republicans caving in on this issue? It’s only more spending on a massive scale. Can someone explain to me how this all works? The government, who is broke, gives money to the unemployed, who are broke. What the hell does that fix?

fogw on December 9, 2010 at 11:08 AM

This deal seems off to me… That Obama and the RINOs negotiated it is probably why… I think we could have done better especially with the unemployment ext… Why 13 months?

Other question: Why did Pigfird pass rife with fraud as it is?

Sadly, I’ve come to the realization that I don’t trust the government at all.

CCRWM on December 9, 2010 at 11:15 AM

I don’t suppose the poll questions included all the irrelevant crap that’s being inserted into the bill, like Noted Conservative Grassley pimping corn subsidies….

As usual, the devil is in the details. I supported the basic thrust of the bill, but figured the greedhead royalty would be including plenty of little handouts to their tight buddyroos.

Unemployment insurance? I’m all for it, especially if we could somehow add 535 — no, 536, counting the smarmy git in the White House — more names to the unemployment rolls.

It seems the Culture of Entitlement infects all who come in contact with the virus, wacko-libs and so-called “conservatives” alike. Like rabies, it’s incurable.

MrScribbler on December 9, 2010 at 11:15 AM

Rasmussen poll shows 56% in favor of tax deal

…and so we will watch a democratic majority pass those “Bush tax cuts for the rich” that liberals have said for years helped destroy our economy.


….Escalation of war and Bush’s war on terror policies….


………….Gitmo still open……….


.,……………..No charges against the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Bush Hitler…..


………Patriot act still alive and well………


……………lobbyist and special interest alive and well on the Hill……….


…………..Cap and Trade dead……………


……………..Amnesty dead…………..


…………………..Card check dead…………


……………..Democratic majorities dead…………


“Yes We Can” has turned to “WTF!!!!”

Baxter Greene on December 9, 2010 at 11:17 AM

I went from thinking “we won” to thinking “why the f*ck didn’t we dictate what was going to happen like we had just won the largest electoral victory since WW2??”.

The GOP was trying to give the POTUS a fig leaf. A multi-billion dollar Fig leaf.

They should have said to Obama “either tax rates stay at current levels or you own the largest tax increase in American history”.

Democrats lost the right to set terms on Nov. 2nd.

Mord on December 9, 2010 at 11:19 AM

Perhaps if Obama had bothered to sell the deal rather than whine about “hostage takers” and make his defeat obvious, he wouldn’t have to work so hard for his own party’s support now.

and it turns the hostage meme on its head since its dems that are stonewalling the deal….

ted c on December 9, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Just where is the practical cutoff point for ending unemployment benefits? We know now, it’s not two years, not even three if this bill gets passed. How about five years, or ten? This nonsense has to end.

Why are Republicans caving in on this issue? It’s only more spending on a massive scale. Can someone explain to me how this all works? The government, who is broke, gives money to the unemployed, who are broke. What the hell does that fix?

fogw on December 9, 2010 at 11:08 AM

It’s a tough issue to take a hardline stance on. I think most Americans if you poll them would say that they don’t believe unemployment benefits should be extended indefinitely, but at the same time who would want to cut off financial assistance to someone who has a family to feed? Especially around the holidays.

I think ultimately we will have a national debate on this if unemployment continues to remain about 9% over the next few years as most economists are predicting. I’d like to see the 2012 GOP nominee propose a maximum amount of time one can qualify for unemployment benefits. Make it 2 years for all I care, but let people know upfront that that is how long they’re gonna get a check and not one day longer.

Doughboy on December 9, 2010 at 11:20 AM

It would make no difference if it was 99% supporting the tax deal. The boneheaded Democrats would still delude themselves into believing we just don’t know what is good for us and would still oppose this thing regardless.

This is why certified assclown morons like Vermont’s favorite Socialist scumbucket Senator Bernie Sanders should have never been elected into office in the first place.

pilamaye on December 9, 2010 at 11:21 AM

JohnGalt23 on December 9, 2010 at 11:07 AM

It’s the appearance. Taxed again just for dying on money that has already been ravaged by an out of control government is criminal.

The GOP is willing to give PBHO these little tidbits when they should be knocking his ass into the corner ropes and pummeling him until he screams for the ref to end it.

Bishop on December 9, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Why does any of this matter when the Fed can print and send Trillions overseas…

… unemployment in states like California is over 12.5%,

our borders are still wide open, and the House just passed the DREAM act…?

Seven Percent Solution on December 9, 2010 at 11:30 AM

This deal sucks. Two years puts this issue back on table for the 2012 election and does nothing to help us small business folks who work on 5 year budgeting.

And 13 more months of unemployment benefits is crazy. The Republican’s sold out in my mind.

Knucklehead on December 9, 2010 at 11:31 AM

I think ultimately we will have a national debate on this if unemployment continues to remain about 9% over the next few years as most economists are predicting. I’d like to see the 2012 GOP nominee propose a maximum amount of time one can qualify for unemployment benefits. Make it 2 years for all I care, but let people know upfront that that is how long they’re gonna get a check and not one day longer.

Doughboy on December 9, 2010 at 11:20 AM

What gives you any indication that unemployment is going to somehow miraculously come down with this ‘DEAL’? This deal adds and additional TRILLION monopoly-money dollars in DEFICIT spending. I thought the American electorate said “CUT THE DAMN SPENDING!” in the last election cycle! Does this look anything like cutting the spending? Squishy Rs need to go along with the drunken dems/libs/progs spenders. They are all spending our children, grand-children and their children into SLAVERY.

belad on December 9, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Still need to keep the death tax from happening, that should have been a non-starter.

Bishop on December 9, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Ideally, yes, but I can live with it for now. It gives Republicans something to work on in 2012.

In the meantime we get a payroll tax reduction and that is astounding. You think Obama’s going to raise taxes on every single working family any time in the future? Not if he values his political career or his legacy.

Caiwyn on December 9, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Just where is the practical cutoff point for ending unemployment benefits? We know now, it’s not two years, not even three if this bill gets passed. How about five years, or ten? This nonsense has to end.
fogw on December 9, 2010 at 11:08 AM

In fact, this bill doesn’t extend the ultimate unemployment benefit term past 99 weeks. It allows those cut off before this term to have access to the same federal “tiers” up to the 99 weeks.

rrpjr on December 9, 2010 at 11:38 AM

A two year extension of the Bush Tax Cuts means that Obooba (or whoever) will have a tax hike plank in his platform in 2012.

Boehner, you magnificent bas1ard!

Akzed on December 9, 2010 at 11:39 AM

This deal adds and additional TRILLION monopoly-money dollars in DEFICIT spending. I thought the American electorate said “CUT THE DAMN SPENDING!” in the last election cycle! Does this look anything like cutting the spending? Squishy Rs need to go along with the drunken dems/libs/progs spenders. They are all spending our children, grand-children and their children into SLAVERY.

belad on December 9, 2010 at 11:31 AM

That’s only true if you begin with the liberals’ assumption that taxes would be raised this year. If you based your projections on the current tax rates, you’d see that trillion dollars was already spent. You’re using liberal math, designed to blame Republicans for the Democrats’ reckless spending. The American people have seen through all that.

Caiwyn on December 9, 2010 at 11:44 AM

In fact, this bill doesn’t extend the ultimate unemployment benefit term past 99 weeks. It allows those cut off before this term to have access to the same federal “tiers” up to the 99 weeks.

rrpjr on December 9, 2010 at 11:38 AM

That’s news to me. You’re saying people who have been on for 99 weeks are SOL now, and their funding is cut off?

Link please.

fogw on December 9, 2010 at 11:51 AM

I wish they would just leave people already in the pipeline on unemployment. You have time left, you don’t get cut off. Then, deal with the unemployment cut-off dates in a different way.

It’s always all or nothing. That’s the problem with big government.

AnninCA on December 9, 2010 at 11:53 AM

I think most independents like me, anyway, couldn’t care less if you raise the rates on a million and above. What stuck with us was the 250,000 mark. Come on. That just hits too many people and too many business owners.

Yes, there’s a way for them to avoid it. Yes, they probably have already, but it’s the principle of the matter, to me.

I become very irritated with Dems over calling these people the “truly wealthy.”

And I personally think they are irritating everyone today with all their silly rhetoric on this issue. It’s more disconnect talking.

AnninCA on December 9, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Link please.
fogw on December 9, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Here is one. I can’t re-locate the longer article I read (either at Am Spec, Commentary or Townhall — I read too much these days!), which was a conservative analysis. The facts were the same — the bill doesn’t extend the ultimate period of 99 weeks, just renews the original, lapsed extension.

1. Extending Emergency Unemployment Compensation
There’s a lot of misinformation about the effort to extend the prolonged unemployment benefits. As of a week ago, people were eligible for up to a total of 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.1 This includes four tiers of extensions. Congress failed to extend the extended benefits—which means that all but the first tier goes away. Unemployment benefits will now end after 26 weeks. This means that everybody on unemployment between week 26 and week 99 will (shortly) be without income. This is approximately two million people.

http://squashed.tumblr.com/post/2077015547/extending-emergency-unemployment-compensation

rrpjr on December 9, 2010 at 12:03 PM

GOP – Mainstream. Democrats – Out Of Touch.

antisocial on December 9, 2010 at 12:19 PM

rrpjr on December 9, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Thanks for the anonymous opinion posted by an unknown blogger.

The paragraph you cite refers to the status of Unemployment Compensation if the current benefit timeline remains unchanged, not what will ocurr under the new proposed extensions.

fogw on December 9, 2010 at 12:54 PM

fogw on December 9, 2010 at 12:54 PM

?

The facts were correct. The new bill as currently written does not extend the total unemployment period beyond 99 weeks.

If you have other readings, please offer them.

Here is the latest on the bill from my state gov’s website:

…the current reported agreement between the President and U.S. Congressional Republicans does not contain any additional weeks of extended benefits, so the maximum total remains up to 99 weeks of benefits.

http://www.edd.ca.gov/Unemployment/Federal_Unemployment_Insurance_Extensions.htm

Again — the bill does not establish indefinite or new extensions beyond the 99 weeks.

I don’t know how much clearer to be.

rrpjr on December 9, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Again — the bill does not establish indefinite or new extensions beyond the 99 weeks.

I don’t know how much clearer to be.

rrpjr on December 9, 2010 at 1:08 PM

If I am too accept your point of view, then the White House was successful in it’s negotiations with the Republicans by keeping everything as is, and the two million people who have used up their full 99 weeks can expect no further checks from the government. That’s some kind of negotiating.

This is in direct contrast to what is being portrayed to the public by the White House, is it not?

I thought Obama saved everyone who’s benefits were about to tun out from destitude.

fogw on December 9, 2010 at 1:23 PM

GOP enthusiastic, Democrats Commies and socialists … not so much.

Fixed that subtitle for ya there, Ed.

UltimateBob on December 9, 2010 at 1:26 PM

fogw on December 9, 2010 at 1:23 PM

I don’t know. I’m not trying to present a point of view. I’m just trying to clarify what the bill says.

rrpjr on December 9, 2010 at 1:29 PM

I’ve been in the accounting field since 1983. Way back then, quite a bit of time, money, and resources were devoted to finding ways of legally avoiding taxes. You could buy all sorts of structured deals meant to produce paper losses for a period until providing capital gains, “insurance plans” that were means for tax-free accumulation of earnings, investments where cash flows differed from taxable income….

Besides the efforts made in ginning up such deals, there were whole squads of promoters and dealers. Then, these groups would inevitably hire lobbyists to promote, enlarge, or enable more of such schemes.

Increases in tax rates or increases in tax complexity are subsidies for tax shelter promoters or lobbyists — at the expense of people providing goods or services that people actually want.

cthulhu on December 9, 2010 at 2:30 PM

I can’t re-locate the longer article I read (either at Am Spec, Commentary or Townhall — I read too much these days!), which was a conservative analysis. The facts were the same — the bill doesn’t extend the ultimate period of 99 weeks, just renews the original, lapsed extension.rrpjr on December 9, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Perhaps it was Hotair:
Update IV: Actually, the unemployment extension is less than meets the eye, too:

The filing deadline for federal unemployment insurance that provides benefits for people who run out of their 26 weeks of state-provided benefits without finding a job would be extended until January 2012. Essentially, this will make it possible for people who became unemployed in the past 99 weeks and still haven’t found a job to collect benefits for the same length of time as people who lost their job more than 99 weeks ago. This would not add additional weeks of benefits — 99 weeks would still be the maximum amount of time that anybody could receive benefits.

So in exchange for tax rates staying the same across the board, the GOP agreed to open the window for eligibility for an additional 13 months but not to pay more than 99 weeks to any individual. That adds cost, but not nearly what the White House’s description suggested. Big thanks to Gabriel Malor for clarifying this point for me.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/07/tax-deal-a-good-not-great-bargain-for-republicans/

redeye on December 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM