One of the key points Republicans will try to argue in the coming legislative session is that the elections represented a “mandate” to pursue certain policies. (They need to do this because despite their electoral triumph, their ability to implement policy remains weak as long as Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency). In particular, Republicans have argued that they have a mandate to extend all of the Bush era tax cuts, as well as a mandate to repeal health reform. I addressed the latter of these topics last week, so thought I would turn to the former now. CNN has a new poll out on the subject, and here are the results:
- 35% of respondents think the tax cuts should be extended for everyone
- 49% of respondents think the tax cuts should be extended for those making under $250,000 a year
- 14% of respondents think the tax cuts should be repealed for everyone
- 1% have no opinion.
Interestingly, the results were identical when the wording of the question was changed to be less factual (e.g., for everyone, for those making under $250,000 a year) and more value laden (e.g., extend those tax cuts and treat all
Americans the same; give better treatment to lower-income Americans than higher-income Americans), thus suggesting the underlying sentiments are fairly stable.
So if the Republicans lack a mandate to repeal health reform or extend the Bush taxes, then what exactly might they have a mandate for? As it turns out, perhaps not that much. CNN actually also asked voters specifically about the question of whether the election results represented a mandate for Republican policies. Here are the results, which even surprised me despite my skepticism on this manner:
- 17% interpreted the election as a mandate for Republican policies
- 70% interpreted the election as a rejection of Democratic policies
- 8% said neither
- 5% had no opinion
Now whether this will amount to anything is another questions. Interestingly, CNN reported on earlier surveys that revealed nearly identical numbers the last time the Republicans took the House in 1994 (18% mandate for Republicans, 60% rejection of Democrats) and very similar numbers when the Democrats took over the House in 2006 (27% mandate for Democrats, 64% rejection of Republicans). So perhaps there is something just inherent in the nature of the question (e.g., maybe more people are comfortable with the concept of rejecting policies than providing a mandate). Or perhaps it signifies a deeper desire on the part of the American public for neither party to go it alone. But combined with John’s post last week on the futility of Obama adopting Republican policies to chase independent voters, these three points (health care, taxes, and mandates generally) certainly suggest that there may be less to gain for Obama from giving in to Republican policy demands than may have originally met the eye.
{ 5 comments }
It’s perhaps worth noting, for the sake of future accuracy, that CNN got the question almost right and you got it wrong. The Obama proposal is to allow the tax cuts to expire for families with taxable incomes over $250,000 and individuals with taxable incomes over $200,000. CNN omitted the difference between what a family earns and what its taxable income is, but at least it did include the word “families” in its question. You, OTOH, wrote about “those making under $250,000 a year.”
Roughly 15% of persons in the top income quintile are unmarried. They pay taxes too, and under the Obama proposal their taxes will go up if they have taxable incomes over $200,000. It may make the Obama proposal more palatable to pretend it kicks in only above $250,000 but that’s not true.
So each cycle, when the other party has won control it’s been overwhelmingly not because the public wants them to have more power, but because they want the other one to have less. In effect, saying “both suck, but we have to pick one of you”…
If changes were made to U.S. elections that made it easier for unaffiliated candidates to win, how soon do you think this would go from constant flipping between Dem & GOP to some form of “neither” actually winning enough seats to get attention?
I was with you up until the end. Wouldn’t the 70% rejection suggest a desire for a middle ground? Perhaps compromise rather then “giving in” ?
I know that this will sound like nit-picking to some, but I think if the tax proposal were better understood, it would be more widely supported.
If the Obama position were adopted, taxes will NOT go up for a family making $250,000 per year: they will go down. The marginal tax rate on income over $250,000 will go up, by a bit. But taxes will not rise for a typical filer until they reach an income level of about $330,000.
I have no ox to gore here: I believe that we should let all of the Bush tax cuts expire: that’ll take us halfway towards eliminating the deficit. A case could be made for deferring the old rates, but this is not a typical recession: companies are making near record profits.
If we let the old tax rates resume, by inaction, there will be some grumbling, but it is a full two years till the next election cycle, and there’s no better time than now. If you were to look at the Democrats right now, one might suspect that they are setting up the stagecraft for exactly that result.
How many total votes did the Republicans actually win by? I think I’ve heard 5 million. Can you confirm? That’s not a mandate for anything. In the next election it is safe to say that 15 million more people will vote. All that’s happened is that the electorate has shown that it’s very fickle. It’ll be interesting to see what happens if very little gets done over the next two years.
Comments on this entry are closed.