By Jim Hand, Sun Chronicle Staff
The Massachusetts members of the U.S. House of Representatives have been among President Barack Obama's strongest supporters in Congress, but now he finds himself in a struggle to convince them to go along with a tax deal he has struck with Republicans.
Members of the all-Democratic Massachusetts delegation to the House said the deal will cause the deficit to balloon and do little to stimulate the economy, although they approve of an extension of unemployment benefits included in the agreement.
Obama came to an agreement with Republican leaders Monday. The deal includes a two-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy that Republicans insisted on. The president said the tax cuts for the rich were the "Holy Grail" for Republicans and the price he had to pay to get the GOP to agree to middle-class tax cuts, unemployment benefits and smaller tax cuts, such as a 2 percent reduction in the Social Security tax.
The package will add an estimated $900 billion to the national debt over two years - more than Obama's much-criticized stimulus bill from last year.
"I'm not happy about where this debate seems to be headed," U.S. Rep. James McGovern, D-Worcester, said.
"It's outrageous that the Republicans are holding emergency unemployment benefits hostage so that millionaires can keep their tax cuts. It's becoming clear that despite all the rhetoric, people aren't really serious about reducing the deficit."
McGovern, who represents the Attleboro area, said he was unsure whether he would vote with the president.
"I'll reserve final judgment until I see the final package, but from what I've seen so far, I can't be supportive," he said.
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Newton, who represents Mansfield, Foxboro, Norton and Norfolk, said he plans to vote against the deal, saying about the estate tax that the "cap is too high and the rate too low."
Under the deal, there would be a $5 million exemption on estate taxes with a top tax rate of 35 percent.
Democrats had sought a return to the $3.5 million exemption and a top rate of 45 percent, which had been in effect in 2009.
Almost all of the 10 Democratic members of the House from Massachusetts made statements similar to McGovern and Frank.
Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Boston, said he is inclined to oppose the package because of the deficit implications. Reps. William Delahunt, D-Quincy, and John Olver, D-Amherst, signed on to a letter stating they oppose the tax cuts for the wealthy.
The Senate seems more sympathetic.
U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said over the weekend that a deal had to be reached while Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., said he was reviewing it.
"Senator Brown will review the compromise, and while the proposal may not be perfect, he wants to make sure that it is good for American families and is a victory for taxpayers," his office said in a statement.
Brown has previously opposed extending unemployment benefits unless they were paid for with budget cuts in other areas. The compromise does not pay for the benefits.
He has strongly supported the tax cuts.
Republicans said the tax cuts are important to stimulating the economy and creating jobs, but some economists disagree.
Jon Bryan, a conservative professor of management at Bridgewater State University, said the deal extends existing tax cuts, so it is unlikely to have much impact.
"It maintains the status quo and the status quo is not good," he said.
On the other hand, allowing the tax cuts to expire might have made the economy worse, he said.
Bryan said the more important issue is what the deal will do to the deficit and national debt.
He said politicians should cut spending by an equal amount to prevent an already too-large debt from getting larger.