Obama Faces Widespread Public Distrust on Iran Deal
President Obama will try to drum up support for the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal Wednesday afternoon at a news conference. But with widespread public disdain and distrust of Iran, Obama may have trouble convincing Americans of the wisdom of dealing with a long-time arch enemy in the Middle East.
The U.S. and Iran on Tuesday announced an agreement that would potentially block Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon for at least a decade while lifting international economic sanctions against Tehran. However, a new AP-GfK poll that was conducted just ahead of the announcement found that Americans only narrowly back diplomatic relations with the hardline Islamic government, and many want to see the sanctions kept in place.
Related: The 8 Most Important Things to Know About the Iran Nuclear Deal
Just 51 percent of those interviewed said the U.S. should have diplomatic relations with Iran while 45 percent said it shouldn’t. At the same time, 77 percent of those interviewed said the harsh U.S. and international economic sanctions against Iran should be preserved at current levels or even increased.
Only 12 percent of those interviewed thought sanctions should be decreased and seven percent said they should be eliminated altogether.
The public’s wariness and distrust of dating back to the 1979 Iranian revolution and U.S. hostage crisis matches the reception the nuclear agreement has received on Capitol Hill where most Republicans and some Democrats say they fear Obama has conceded too much to a country that has fomented terrorist activities throughout the Middle East and has repeatedly vowed to destroy Israel.
Fifty-six percent of Americans consider Iran to be an enemy, according to the poll conducted last Thursday through Monday, while an additional 31 percent consider Iran to be unfriendly but not an enemy. More than 70 percent of Republicans, half of all independents and 45 percent of Democrats described Iran as the enemy.
Related: Clinton Cautious in Her Praise of a Nuclear Deal She Helped to Orchestrate
Before the agreement was announced, six in ten Americans said they disapproved of Obama's handling of the U.S. relationship with Iran, while just over a third approved.
Obama is likely to prevail in pushing the nuclear non-proliferation agreement through Congress over the next two months, despite near-unanimous opposition from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner and other leaders and rank and file Republicans. Still, he will need to hold in place at least 34 of the 46 Democrats in the Senate to create a veto-proof firewall in the event Republicans push through a resolution of disapproval of the nuclear deal.
That means that Obama cannot afford any more than 12 Democratic defections to keep the agreement alive. Yesterday, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden began working the phones to shore up support on Capitol Hill, and the president will continue that effort during this afternoon’s White House press conference.
During an interview yesterday with Tom Friedman of The New York Times, Obama stressed that the deal prevented a pathway for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon while making it clear he shared Americans’ distrust of the Iranian government and had limited expectations of improved relations down the road.
Related: Iran Agrees to Limit Nuclear Weapon in Historic Deal
When announcing the deal yesterday, Obama said, “This deal is not built on trust -- it's built on verification…. We will, for the first time, be in a position to verify that Iran is meeting all of these commitments. International nuclear inspectors will have access to Iran's nuclear program -- where necessary, when necessary. This is the most comprehensive and intrusive verification regime that we have ever negotiated. If Iran tries to divert raw materials to covert facilities, inspectors will be able to access any suspicious locations.”
Marco Rubio Says There’s No Proof Tax Cuts Are Helping American Workers
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) told The Economist that his party’s defense of the massive tax cuts passed last year may be off base: “There is still a lot of thinking on the right that if big corporations are happy, they’re going to take the money they’re saving and reinvest it in American workers,” Rubio said. “In fact they bought back shares, a few gave out bonuses; there’s no evidence whatsoever that the money’s been massively poured back into the American worker.”
For Richer or Poorer: An Updated Marriage Bonus and Penalty Calculator
The Tax Policy Center has updated its Marriage Bonus and Penalty Calculator for 2018, including the new GOP-passed tax law. The tool lets users calculate the difference in income taxes a couple would owe if filing as married or separately. “Most couples will pay lower income taxes after they are married than they would as two separate taxpayers (a marriage bonus), but some will pay a marriage penalty," TPC’s Daniel Berger writes. “Typically, couples with similar incomes will be hit with a penalty while those where one spouse earns significantly more than the other will almost always get a bonus for walking down the aisle.”
Trump Administration Wants to Raise the Rent
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson will propose increasing the rent obligation for low-income households receiving federal housing subsidies, as well as creating new work requirements for subsidy recipients. Some details via The Washington Post: “Currently, tenants generally pay 30 percent of their adjusted income toward rent or a public housing agency minimum rent not to exceed $50. The administration’s legislative proposal sets the family monthly rent contribution at 35 percent of gross income or 35 percent of their earnings by working 15 hours a week at the federal minimum wage -- or approximately $150 a month, three times higher than the current minimum.” (The Washington Post)
New Push for Capital Gains Tax Cut
Anti-tax activists in Washington are renewing their pressure on lawmakers to pass new legislation indexing capital gains taxes to inflation. The Hill provided an example of such indexing that Grover Norquist recently sent to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin: “Under current policy, someone who made an investment of $1,000 in 2000 and sold it for $2,000 in 2017 would pay capital gains taxes on the $1,000 difference. But if capital gains were indexed, the investor would only pay taxes on $579, since $1,000 in 2000 would be equivalent to $1,421 in 2017 after adjusting for inflation.” Proponents of indexing say it’s just a matter of fairness, but critics claim that it would be just another regressive tax cut for the wealthy. Indexing would cost an estimated $10 billion a year in lost revenues. (The Hill)
Bernie Sanders to Propose Plan Guaranteeing a Job for Every American
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is preparing to announce a plan for the federal government to guarantee a job paying $15 an hour and providing health-care benefits to every American “who wants one or needs one.” The jobs would be on government projects in areas such as infrastructure, care giving, the environment and education. The proposal is still being crafted, and Sanders’ representative said his office had not yet come up with a cost estimate or funding plan. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) last week tweeted support for a federal jobs guarantee, but Republicans have long opposed such proposals, saying they would cost too much. (Washington Post)