WASHINGTON — As their leaders inch toward agreeing to higher tax rates, dozens of House Republicans find themselves caught between the will of a larger American public that favors higher taxes on the rich and the wishes of constituents who re-elected them overwhelmingly to oppose the Obama agenda at every turn.
In Talks, House Majority Weighs Loyalty to Voters
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Representative Scott Garrett, a Repbulican from New Jersey: "Another series of robocalls or fliers or TV ads are not going to change the opinion of my constituents."
By JONATHAN WEISMAN
Published: December 10, 2012
Michael F. McElroy for The New York Times
Representative James B. Renacci, campaigning in October, says raising taxes is not an answer.
With the last House race decided over the weekend, the conflict between a Democratic president convincingly re-elected to a second term and the House Republicans who held their majority illustrates a striking dichotomy in the nation’s body politic: the president and a majority of senators, including a growing number of Republicans, back compromise on tax rates and say the public is on their side, and a majority of the House, in artfully drawn districts, claim just the opposite.
“We ran aggressively talking about taxes and growth and spending, as did the president,” said Representative Sean P. Duffy, a first-term Republican from Wisconsin, who despite being a top target of Democrats easily won re-election by 12 percentage points. “The president keeps talking about his mandate. Well, he doesn’t have a mandate in the Seventh District.”
Given the electoral dynamics, the lawmakers who are broaching the possibility of raising tax rates as a way to strike a deal and prevent the possibility of a recession are beginning to appeal to House members with a term not heard often in the House — the national interest.
The numbers explain how both the president and House Republicans see themselves on solid ground. National polling has consistently shown a public that favors raising taxes on the affluent to help bring down the deficit. But few Republicans in the House fear the political ramifications of such polls.
“My constituents want me to stand firm on cutting spending. I campaigned on that issue. That’s why they elected me,” said Representative Ted Poe, Republican of Texas, who won re-election with 65 percent of the vote. “I don’t see any scenario where raising tax rates, in any combination of compromise, will solve our problem.”
Of the 234 House Republicans who will sit in the 113th Congress, 85 percent won re-election with 55 percent of the vote; more than half of next year’s House Republican Conference won more than 60 percent. And virtually every one of them ran on holding the line against tax increases and the Obama agenda.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on Monday began automated phone calls in 35 Republican House districts accusing members of “holding the middle class hostage to get more reckless, budget-busting tax cuts for millionaires.” Unions and liberal interest groups have run advertisements, mounted protests and organized phone campaigns to pressure Republicans to increase tax rates for the rich.
But even most of the Republicans on the target lists won re-election handily.
“Another series of robocalls or fliers or TV ads are not going to change the opinion of my constituents,” said Representative Scott Garrett, Republican of New Jersey, who won more than 55 percent in November but still drew the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s attention Monday.
House Democratic candidates won about 50.5 percent of the national vote in November, but took just 46 percent of the seats. In the last 40 years, only one other time — 1996 — did the party that won the majority of the votes end up with a minority of the House, said Nicholas Goedert, a political science researcher at Washington University in St. Louis in Missouri. Democrats actually gained two seats in the Senate.
Political scientists point to two factors influencing this divergence: a redistricting process dominated by Republican legislatures, and even more so, the concentration of Democratic voters in urban enclaves.
Gerrymandering did matter. In nine states redistricted by Republicans, the Democratic vote share was well above the percentage of seats won, Mr. Goedert said. For instance, in North Carolina, Democratic House candidates won 51 percent of the vote but only 27 percent of the House seats. Where Democrats drew the lines, in Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts, Democratic House delegations fared better than their vote totals, but not as drastically. This points to an inherent advantage for Republicans. In closely contested years, like 2012, the concentration of Democratic voters in cities has put them at a loss — and given House Republicans little reason to fear national opinion.
- 1
- 2
A version of this article appeared in print on December 11, 2012, on page A20 of the New York edition with the headline: In Talks, House Majority Weighs Loyalty to Voters.
