Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) questions Neil M. Gorsuch during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post) 
 
 As Republicans continue to sell the details of their tax bill, some are reaching for more colorful language to liven up complex policies that tend to put the average voter to sleep. 
 
 Case in point: Over the weekend, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) hashed over the plan with his home state’s largest newspaper, the Des Moines Register. Turning to the party’s idea of doing away with the estate tax, Grassley framed the current law as a hindrance to responsible saving. 
 
 “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley told the Register in a story published Saturday. “As opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.” 
 
 The estate tax, often described by Republicans as the “death tax,” is levied only on the very rich, passing on assets of more than $5.5 million for individuals and $11 million for married couples. The current tax on estates is 40 percent of an individual’s wealth at death. 
 
 Grassley, a Senate Finance Committee member responsible for writing the tax proposal, was immediately slammed by critics over the comments. 
 
 The suggestion — that anyone not socking away their savings in the bank or investments must be profligately throwing their money away — played directly into the critique that Republicans are disconnected from the majority of working Americans. 
 
 [Analysis: Why aren’t you paying the estate tax? Maybe because you bought 311,000 bottles of whisky.] 
 
 “Darn straight, Sen. Grassley,” former Hillary Clinton spokesman Jesse Ferguson wrote on Twitter. “If we gave that money in middle class tax cuts, they’d just waste it on hookers and blow. right?” 
 
 Said Holly O’Reilly, a national “March for Truth” organizer: 
 
 Dear @ChuckGrassley You spelled “food and childcare” wrong. Pull it together. Sincerely, America 
 
 On Monday, Grassley said his point about the estate tax had been taken out of context and sought to expound on his thoughts. 
 
 “My point regarding the estate tax, which has been taken out of context, is that the government shouldn’t seize the fruits of someone’s lifetime of labor after they die,” he said in a statement. “The question is one of basic fairness, and working to create a tax code that doesn’t penalize frugality, saving and investment. That’s as true for family farmers who have to break up their operations to pay the IRS following the death of a loved one as it is for parents saving for their children’s college education or working families investing and saving for their retirement.” 
 
 [Democrats fume over ‘absurd’ GOP tax bill full of last-minute handwritten edits] 
 
 Under the Senate tax plan passed early Saturday morning along partisan lines, the exemptions are raised to $11 million per individual and $22 million per couple. The House version of the bill does the same but also axes the tax completely in 2024. 
 
 In Grassley’s home state of Iowa, the estate tax has been particularly fraught with controversy. Republicans have often argued that the 40 percent government tax creates a cost-prohibitive situation for farmers hoping to pass their farms on to heirs. 
 
 “Death should not be a taxable event and families should not have to fear the Internal Revenue Service and more taxes making it more difficult and costly to pass on the farm or family business to the next generation,” Rep. David Young (R), a Des Moines-area congressman, wrote on Friday in a newsletter to constituents. 
 
 But according to the Register, the actual numbers do not support that narrative. Citing 2016 data from the IRS, the newspaper determined 5,219 tax returns were affected by the current estate tax. Only 682, or 13 percent, of the tax filers owned farm assets. 
 
 The paper also referred to a 2015 report from the Congressional Research Service noting that only 65 farm estates in the United States annually are touched by the estate tax. 
 
 Grassley and other congressional Republicans have long maintained that even if farmers are not affected by the tax directly, the planning involved is an additional strain. 
 
 “[M]any are forced into spending large sums of their hard-earned dollars on lawyers and accountants to avoid its impact instead of reinvesting in their business,” he told the Register. “This means that while many don’t end up paying the tax, it still has a negative effect on the economy.” 
 
 This post has been updated. 
 
 More from Morning Mix: 
 
 Billy Bush says there were 8 witnesses to Trump’s ‘Access Hollywood’ comments 
 
 James B. Comey, Sally Yates and Eric Holder defend FBI after Trump’s Twitter attack ||||| As arguments for repealing the estate tax go, Chuck Grassley certainly … has one. Actually, the senator from Iowa has two, one on principle and the other based on scolding people over how they use their own money. Guess which one got the most attention this weekend? 
 
 In comments published by the Des Moines Register on Saturday, Grassley explained why the Senate version of tax reform includes a traditional Republican repeal of the estate tax: 
 
 Grassley was adamant about the need for change, even if farmers and small business owners represent a tiny minority of estate tax payers. The reason, he said, is as much philosophical as practical. An estate tax effectively and unfairly taxes a person’s earnings twice, he argued: first when they earn it and again when they die. And, he added, it penalizes savers without touching spenders. “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley said, “as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.” 
 
 If Grassley wants to stop boozers and womanizers, he’d have his hands full just focusing on his Capitol Hill colleagues. Nothing says “I’m a man of the people” like attempting to craft laws to punish people for their social activities, amirite? 
 
 This is everything right and wrong with the current Republican tax-reform effort in a nutshell. His first argument on the estate tax is dead-on correct. The estate tax’s true offense to ordered liberty is that it double-dips. Accumulated wealth exists from earnings already subject to taxation, and further taxation by passing the estate to one’s heirs is an injustice that in some cases needlessly complicates an already emotional process. It’s a form of double jeopardy, at least in principle. 
 
 In the very next breath, however, Grassley commits the same sin that has plagued the tax system for decades, which is Congress’ desire to commit social engineering through it. The point of limited taxation is that the money belongs to the people who earned it, not the government elected by those people. If I want to spend my money on dinner with a woman, the latest Roman-numeral cookie-cutter superhero flick, followed up by a few drinks at the local bar, that’s my business and not that of Chuck Grassley. (In my case specifically, it would also be my wife’s business, and I’d face a very different kind of taxation.) Those choices should neither be abetted nor punished through the federal tax system. 
 
 Conservatives have argued for decades to eliminate the kind of social engineering Grassley endorses here. A decade ago, we had competing tax proposals for either a flat tax or a repeal of the 16th Amendment and the use of a consumption tax to replace the current income tax. Now that Republicans finally have control of Washington, the best that they can do is merely an adjustment to the existing labyrinthine system — especially true of the Senate version — that leaves in place all of the manipulative capabilities for social engineering in both the corporate and individual tax systems. 
 
 Finally, while eliminating the estate tax is a theoretically principled step, it should have been waaaaaaay down the list for true reform. As the DMR points out, it doesn’t actually impact very many taxpayers anyway, thanks to a high threshold for its application (currently $5 million in estate assets for single heirs, $11 million for married). In Iowa, that would impact perhaps 10% of all farms before allowable deductions that would raise the threshold even higher. And the Senate bill doesn’t even repeal the tax — it only raises the thresholds to $11 million/$22 million. That also is an adjustment, not a reform, so Grassley can’t even stand on the principle he proposes. 
 
 Republicans had an opportunity to be bold; instead, they’re perpetuating the problem. In honor of that, I think I’ll get a case of Jameson’s, a shelf of new Blu-Ray films, and celebrate the victory of the swamp until the 2018 elections. As for the womanizing, Grassley has no worries. My wife is all over that one. ||||| Grassley: Ending Estate Tax Recognizes Investors Over Spenders 
 
 Enlarge this image toggle caption J. Scott Applewhite/AP J. Scott Applewhite/AP 
 
 Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, commenting on the GOP tax overhaul, tells The Des Moines Register that ending the estate tax is about rewarding people who invest over those who spend everything they earn on "booze or women or movies." 
 
 A promise to end the so-called death tax has been a bulwark of Republican electoral politics for decades. A House version of the bill would do just that by 2024; however, the Senate's version of the tax overhaul, which narrowly passed the chamber early Saturday, would keep it, but instead double the current exemption to $11 million from $5.5 million per individual. For married couples, the current exemption is already at $11 million. 
 
 "I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it's on booze or women or movies," Grassley, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told the Register on Saturday. 
 
 The senator's remarks elicited a harsh response on social media, with one Twitter user commenting: "I'm sure those folks would love to invest, but they're a bit preoccupied just trying to make ends meet." 
 
 The elimination of the estate tax benefits a tiny fraction of taxpayers. The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that for 2017, fewer than 2 in 1,000 estates will owe any estate tax, or about 0.2 percent. 
 
 Grassley has been an especially strong proponent of ending the estate tax, claiming that it hurts Iowa families trying to pass their farms from one generation to the next. But in an editorial published over the weekend, the Register wrote: "a review of federal tax data and nonpartisan research on the subject shows that family farmers and small business owners represent a tiny share of estate tax payers, and that the taxes they owe rarely force them to sell land or quit farming." 
 
 The Hill writes: ||||| CLOSE Here is the full audio of Chuck Grassley's answer to a Des Moines Register reporter's question concerning the estate tax. The "booze or women or movies" quote begins at the 4:10 mark. Jason Noble/The Register 
 
 Reporters wait for the arrival of senators for vote on the tax bill on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on December 1, 2017. (Photo: MARI MATSURI, AFP/Getty Images) 
 
 If the tax reform packages that have now passed the U.S. House and Senate become law, at least one thing appears likely: The federal estate tax will be slashed and perhaps eliminated altogether. 
 
 That will represent a victory for Republicans in Iowa’s congressional delegation, who have consistently opposed the tax and argued it unfairly lumps in the state’s farmers with some of the country’s richest families. 
 
 But a review of federal tax data and nonpartisan research on the subject shows that family farmers and small business owners represent a tiny share of estate tax payers, and that the taxes they owe rarely force them to sell land or quit farming. 
 
 The number of Iowans paying the estate tax actually numbers in the dozens each year, out of roughly 1.4 million who file federal tax returns each year. IRS data from the last five years shows the number of Iowa taxpayers owing estate taxes ranged from 32 in 2012 to 61 in 2015, and that the vast majority of those probably were not farmers or small business owners. 
 
 Buy Photo Protesters gather outside the Neil Smith Federal Building in downtown Des Moines Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2017, to protest the Republican Tax Reform Plan. (Photo: Rodney White/The Register) 
 
 Despite that evidence, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, a member of the tax-writing Finance Committee in the Senate, has long presented the estate tax as a potentially ruinous burden on farmers and small business owners. 
 
 “The federal estate tax may force family members to liquidate to pay the death tax,” Grassley said in a statement released earlier this year. “It’s harder than ever for families to pass down the family-run farm or business from one generation to the next. The death tax creates financial hardship for family businesses to survive and thrive.” 
 
 The estate tax is a 40 percent tax on wealth assessed when a person dies, and currently is applied to assets above $5.5 million for individuals and $11 million for couples. The House and Senate bills double those exemptions to $11 million and $22 million, and the House version abolishes the tax completely in 2024. 
 
 ““I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”” U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa 
 
 In a statement after the House bill passed, U.S. Rep. Steve King, a Republican from Iowa’s ag-heavy 4th District, cheered the changes, arguing the estate tax “often falls hardest on family-owned farms and small businesses.” 
 
 Likewise, U.S. Rep. David Young, a Republican whose district includes the Des Moines metro, has highlighted changes to what Republicans often call the “death tax.” 
 
 In a newsletter sent on Friday, Young called it a "myth" that "repealing the estate tax is a massive giveaway to the wealthiest Americans." 
 
 Rather, he wrote, "The estate tax (sometimes called the death tax) negatively impacts farms and businesses all over the 3rd District. ... Death should not be a taxable event and families should not have to fear the Internal Revenue Service and more taxes making it more difficult and costly to pass on the farm or family business to the next generation." 
 
 That view, in fact, has been a GOP talking point for a generation or more. President George W. Bush made the exact argument in 2001 when pushing tax cuts that raised the estate tax exemption and lowered rates. 
 
 “To keep farms in the family, we are going to get rid of the death tax,” Bush declared back then. 
 
 CLOSE Senate Republicans have approved a massive tax overhaul that provides more than $1 trillion in tax cuts over ten years. USA TODAY 
 
 Few farmers affected 
 
 The arguments from Grassley, Young, King and others, however, don’t match the reality found in federal tax data – particularly for Iowa. 
 
 The estate tax applies to around 5,000 taxpayers across the entire country each year, and very few of them come from Iowa. Of the Iowans subject to the tax, only a fraction are actually farmers, and a vanishingly small number of them face a tax bill requiring them to sell off farmland or other assets. 
 
 Buy Photo Paula Egan of Des Moines stands with protesters gathered outside the Neil Smith Federal Building in downtown Des Moines Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2017, to protest the Republican Tax Reform Plan. (Photo: Rodney White/The Register) 
 
 No data is available breaking down the occupations or asset types held by the Iowans subject to the estate tax. But national data shows farmers and owners of farm assets make up a tiny share of estate tax payers. 
 
 According to IRS data from 2016, just 682 tax filers in the entire country who owed estate taxes owned any farm assets. That represents about 13 percent of the 5,219 estate tax returns in which taxes were owed. 
 
 And even that figure likely overstates the number of primarily farm operations subject to the tax. A 2015 report from the Congressional Research Service projects that just 65 farm estates annually across the U.S. face an estate tax liability. Less than a quarter of these, the congressional report finds, have insufficient cash to pay their tax bills. 
 
 A U.S. Department of Agriculture analysis published earlier this year found a somewhat higher number of farm estates owed the tax in 2016: 0.4 percent, or about 160 nationwide. 
 
 Kristine Tidgren, the assistant director of the Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State University, said she’s not aware of any Iowa estates forced to sell land since the estate tax exemption was raised to its current level in 2012. 
 
 Buy Photo Protesters gather outside the Neil Smith Federal Building in downtown Des Moines Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2017, to protest the Republican Tax Reform Plan. (Photo: Rodney White/The Register) 
 
 “I haven’t come across any examples of an Iowa family that had to sell the farm to pay the estate tax,” Tidgren said. “I don’t think the current estate tax system threatens family farmers.” 
 
 The USDA report puts hard numbers to the tax liability faced by the few farms subject to the estate tax. 
 
 Operations the USDA classifies as small family farms (those with annual income under $350,000) face an average tax bill of about $620,000, or 11 percent of their total value of the estate. For mid-size farms (with annual income between $350,000 and $1 million), the average bill is $3.7 million, or about 24 percent of the estate’s value. 
 
 Tidgren said the farmers facing such a bill are typically diversified — perhaps with an off-farm job or business and liquid assets like stocks and bonds in addition to real estate and equipment. 
 
 “With the price of land, there are some farms in Iowa that definitely have to worry about the estate tax, and they might end up having to pay some,” she said. “But generally those are larger operations and oftentimes they have other assets outside of the farm property.” 
 
 The number of small businesses impacted by the estate tax is similarly small. That same Congressional Research Service report finds about 94 estates annually that hold half or more of their assets in a small business that heirs will continue to operate after the owners die. And fewer than half of these don’t have the cash on hand to pay the tax. 
 
 All this means, in essence, is that lawmakers’ argument for abolishing a tax that generates tens of billions of dollars annually is based on the challenges faced by perhaps a few dozen farm estates and a few dozen more small businesses across the entire country. 
 
 When asked for data supporting Grassley’s view, his Senate office offered a report from the American Farm Bureau Federation, which showed that rising land values in recent years have increased the number of farms potentially subject to the estate tax. 
 
 That report found Iowa farms with as few as 625 acres — encompassing as much as 30 percent of farms in the state — could be subject to the tax in 2016. 
 
 This analysis overlooks key factors, however. For one, it applies an exemption level of $5 million, which is roughly the exemption for an individual. For married couples, the first $11 million in assets are exempt from the tax. Using the Farm Bureau’s analysis but applying an $11 million exemption suggests only farms with more than about 1,400 acres might face the estate tax. Ten percent or less of Iowa farms are that size. 
 
 The Farm Bureau analysis also does not account for various deductions available that can drive an estate’s taxable value below the $5 million threshold. Of the 120 Iowa taxpayers who filed an estate tax return in 2016, 118 claimed deductions and 44 actually owed taxes. 
 
 Young, King and 1st District U.S. Rep. Rod Blum voted for the House version of tax reform containing the estate tax repeal. Grassley and Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst likewise voted for the Senate version, and Grassley this year co-sponsored standalone legislation to permanently abolish the estate tax. 
 
 In a Nov. 29 interview, Grassley was adamant about the need for change, even if farmers and small business owners represent a tiny minority of estate tax payers. The reason, he said, is as much philosophical as practical. 
 
 An estate tax effectively and unfairly taxes a person’s earnings twice, he argued: first when they earn it and again when they die. And, he added, it penalizes savers without touching spenders. 
 
 “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley said, “as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.” 
 
 The seven-term senator runs an operation in Butler County with his son and grandson and frequently describes himself as a farmer. When asked if his own family farm would be subject to the estate tax, Grassley initially said it would not. 
 
 Then, after mulling it over a moment, he backtracked, noting that if he and his wife died on the same day the estate would be subject to the $5.5 million exemption rather than the $11 million exemption and likely would have to file an estate tax return. 
 
 What the changes might mean 
 
 Should the tax reform package ultimately pass with language doubling the exemption or ending it all together, Tidgren said one likely effect would be simplifying farmers’ financial planning. That’s particularly true for those who end up owing little or nothing, but must take complicated steps to get there. 
 
 U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Dec. 2, 2017 (Photo: David R. Lutman, Special to Courier Journal) 
 
 “There is a lot of expensive planning going on to try to reduce any liability that you have. That’s just smart business,” she said. “So the one thing I would say about the proposals on the table is they would definitely reduce the need for the vast majority of our farmers to worry about it at all.” 
 
 Grassley echoed that point in a statement to the Des Moines Register, citing estate tax-related planning as a major headache for farmers and business owners. 
 
 “Family farmers, small businesspeople and others that may be affected by the estate tax understand that it is law, so many are forced into spending large sums of their hard-earned dollars on lawyers and accountants to avoid its impact instead of reinvesting in their business,” he said. “This means that while many don’t end up paying the tax, it still has a negative effect on the economy.” 
 
 Beyond that, of course, pulling back or eliminating the estate tax would save billions for the richest Americans. Seventy-two percent of estate tax payments come from the top 1 percent of U.S. taxpayers; 42 percent comes from the top 0.1 percent. 
 
 How the estate tax works 
 
 The estate tax is a 40 percent tax on assets assessed when a person dies. The rate and income levels subject to the tax have bounced around a lot over the last two decades, but under current law it kicks in on assets above $5.5 million for individuals and $11 million for couples. 
 
 How might that play out in real life? Imagine a couple with assets — property, stocks, cash savings, etc. — valued at $21 million. When the surviving spouse dies, the estate would owe $4 million in estate taxes — 40 percent of the $10 million above the $11 million exemption. 
 
 (This is just an example; there are several available deductions that could drive down the tax liability even further.) 
 
 The tax bill that passed the Senate last week doubles the exemption to the tax, so that it’s applied only to an individual’s estate above $11 million or a couple’s estate over $22 million. In the example given above, the couple would no longer be subject to the estate tax at all; their assets are below the $22 million exemption. 
 
 The House’s tax reform package, passed in November, is even more generous: It doubles the exemptions starting in 2018 and then abolishes the tax altogether in 2024. 
 
 The Senate version would reduce government revenues by $83 billion between 2018 and 2027, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. The House approach would reduce government revenues $150.7 billion over that time. 
 
 The House and Senate must now reconcile the differences between their bills and send a final version to President Donald Trump. 
 
 Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/2nnLxD2 ||||| SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email 
 
 President-elect Donald Trump, who won the hearts and minds of millions of working-class voters, may help deliver a multibillion-dollar bonanza to America’s wealthiest families. 
 
 The Manhattan businessman’s election offers congressional Republicans their best chance in years to eliminate the estate tax, which he and others call the “death tax.” Abolishing it would save more than $20 billion a year for the millionaires and billionaires the tax applies to -- including the Trump family and several of the people he has chosen for his administration. 
 
 “A lot of families go through hell over the death tax,” Trump said during his presidential run. The tax’s opponents say it forces some families to sell their farms or small businesses in order to pay up. Studies suggest that only a small percentage of estates fall into those categories. 
 
 Wiping out the estate tax has been a longstanding goal for Republican lawmakers, and the party’s sweeping victories in the 2016 election have brought them thrillingly close to achieving it. But there are potential stumbling blocks. Their narrow margin in the Senate leaves few votes to spare. And Trump may have a hard time reconciling his populist campaign themes with a tax break for America’s richest. 
 
 Under federal law, the tax, which is levied at a 40 percent rate, applies only to estates worth more than $5.45 million for individuals and $10.9 million for couples. Estates worth less than that may be passed on to heirs tax-free. Last year, just 0.2 percent of estates of people who died were subject to the tax, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington-based research group that’s a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. 
 
 ‘The Forgotten Guy’ 
 
 Trump “campaigned as someone who’s going to help the middle class, the forgotten guy, but every policy he’s advocating -- huge tax cuts for the wealthy, estate tax -- all for the top .001 percent,” said Representative Jerry Nadler, a Democrat from Manhattan. 
 
 America’s wealthiest “hit the jackpot” with Trump’s election, he said. 
 
 Since Trump’s election, House Ways & Means Chairman Kevin Brady and Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch have repeated their desire to repeal the estate tax. House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have long supported its elimination. Passage in the Republican-led House is assured. In the Senate, a decade-long estate tax repeal can pass with 50 of 52 expected GOP senators under a special mechanism called reconciliation, while 60 votes could end it for good. 
 
 “The death tax on family farms, small businesses, ranches and estates has crippled hard-working families for far too long,” Hatch told Bloomberg News in a statement. 
 
 In 2013, 120 of the 3,780 estates subject to the tax were farms and businesses, according to the Tax Policy Center. That’s a little more than 3 percent. The same year, estates valued above $20 million paid an average tax rate of 18.8 percent -- many achieve a lower effective rate through tax-planning strategies, including giving some of their fortune away to charity. 
 
 Windfall to Leaders 
 
 At that 18.8 percent effective rate, repealing the tax would be a large windfall to the leaders-in-waiting of the Trump administration. 
 
 Trump’s estate would save $564 million, based on his estimated net worth of $3 billion. Trump disagrees with that net-worth estimate, which Bloomberg News compiled in July; he has said his net worth exceeds $10 billion. If so, his savings would increase -- to as much as $1.9 billion at an 18.8 percent effective tax rate. Trump’s transition team didn’t respond to a request for comment for this story. 
 
 Trump’s Commerce secretary choice, Wilbur Ross, might save about $545 million, based on his estimated net worth of $2.9 billion. Ross is the chairman and chief strategy officer of WL Ross & Co. LLC. Richard DeVos, the father-in-law of Trump’s education secretary choice Betsy DeVos, might save $900 million, based on his estimated $4.8 billion net worth. Richard DeVos is co-founder of Alticor Inc., the parent of closely held direct-seller Amway Corp. Linda McMahon, Trump’s pick to head the Small Business Administration, and her husband, Vince McMahon, who together founded World Wrestling Entertainment Inc., might save more than $250 million based on their shared net worth of at least $1.35 billion. The nominees’ net worth estimates were compiled by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. 
 
 Repealing the tax would also benefit Treasury secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin, who held shares in CIT Group Inc. worth more than $100 million as of Dec. 2. And Gary Cohn, who is said to be Trump’s choice for his chief economic policy adviser, would leave his position as president of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. with $266 million of stock and awards amassed during his years at the investment bank, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. 
 
 Early Test 
 
 The looming estate-tax debate may be an early test of how Republicans deal with the electorate’s populist-over-elite mood. In interviews, Republican senators and congressmen played down the tension between Trump’s populist image and repealing the estate tax. 
 
 “Every president who’s ever had the office is going to have tension between their campaign and reality,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican. “How he handles that tension is up to him. But there’s nothing new about a president campaigning one way and having to govern another.” 
 
 Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said on Thursday he expects an estate tax repeal to be included in the budget reconciliation beginning in April. Others want it to be part of a comprehensive tax overhaul package. GOP aides said many are waiting for guidance from Trump. 
 
 Some conservatives caution that upper-end tax breaks are politically problematic. 
 
 “Trump would do well to craft a tax-reform agenda that is populist in a very visible, obvious way that delivers tangible gains to middle-income voters,” said Reihan Salam, executive editor of the National Review, a conservative magazine. “I believe that coming right out of the gate and focusing on high-end tax cuts might prove costly.” 
 
 Democratic Opposition 
 
 Democrats overwhelmingly oppose reducing the tax — presidential nominee Hillary Clinton campaigned on raising its rate to 65 percent for couples worth $1 billion. “I’m against” repealing the tax, said incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. “To do it would sure help out the wealthiest few in America.” 
 
 GOP leaders are thus wary of over-promising. “Every tax bill is going to have a lot of tension and a lot of problems because the Democrats are not real enthused about things,” Hatch said in an interview. “We’ll just have to see. But we may be able to do some things.” 
 
 The politics of repeal may depend on which description of the tax reaches the public. A Gallup poll in March found that 54 percent of Americans favored eliminating it when told it’s a tax paid when a person dies. But researchers have found that people are more likely to support it -- and to want it to be increased -- when told who it affects. 
 
 “It becomes a question of how effective Democrats are at reframing that issue beyond this notion of a death tax,” said Norman Ornstein, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. 
 
 — With assistance by Brendan Coffey ||||| Republican House and Senate negotiators released their thousand-page tax bill Friday evening, getting one step closer to passing sweeping legislation that would provide deep tax cuts for corporations and tax breaks for the wealthy, while offering what most economists say are more limited benefits for middle-class Americans. 
 
 The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 would lower the corporate rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, eliminate the corporate alternative minimum tax which ensures corporations pay at least some tax on their income, lower the top individual income tax rate and raise the threshold for inheritances to be subject to the estate tax. 
 
 It lowers tax rates overall within seven brackets, and keeps popular deductions including ones for student loans, medical expenses and charitable giving, and curtails the mortgage interest deduction and deductions people take on state and local taxes if they choose not to take the standard tax deduction. 
 
 Individuals may see some relief in the form of a doubled standard deduction, but at least two independent analyses have found that people making less than $75,000 would actually pay more in taxes in the next ten years. 
 
 According to the Congressional Budget Office and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation’s estimates, the plan would add $1.455 trillion to the deficit over next 10 years. 
 
 Congress is expected to begin voting on the bill early next week. 
 
 The White House applauded the plan in a statement and said that "President Trump is on the precipice of fulfilling that promise" to Americans to "provide much needed financial relief to all Americans." 
 
 Trump had previously called GOP efforts to provide tax cuts a "big, beautiful Christmas present" to the American people. 
 
 Many Democrats roundly criticized the plan on Friday as one they feel benefits the wealthy at the expense of middle income Americans. 
 
 "I’m surprised anyone can call this a tax reform bill with a straight face. This is nothing more than a huge tax cut for big corporations and the rich, paid for by the middle class," Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif. tweeted after the plan was released. 
 
 Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., questioned the timing of the bill's release. 
 
 Senate Republicans just released their final tax bill at 5:30 on a Friday. It’s almost like they don’t want you to know what’s in the bill. #GOPTaxScam — Mark Warner (@MarkWarner) December 15, 2017 
 
 Two key Republican holdouts did a 180-degree turn on Friday and now support the GOP tax bill: Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. and Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. 
 
 While several Republicans had said they were waiting to see the final bill, right now, it does not appear a single Republican is on the record as a "no" vote. 
 
 For far too long, Washington has ignored and left behind the American working class. Increasing the refundability of the Child Tax Credit from 55% to 70% is a solid step toward broader reforms which are both Pro-Growth and Pro-Worker. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) December 15, 2017 
 
 Rubio, who on Thursday was a "no' vote, now appears on board after Republicans expanded the child tax credit. 
 
 Corker, who was the sole Republican to oppose the original Senate bill over concerns about the deficit, is also now a yes. 
 
 “After great thought and consideration, I believe that this once-in-a-generation opportunity to make U.S. businesses domestically more productive and internationally more competitive is one we should not miss," Corker said in a statement. 
 
 “In the end, after 11 years in the Senate, I know every bill we consider is imperfect and the question becomes is our country better off with or without this piece of legislation. I think we are better off with it. I realize this is a bet on our country’s enterprising spirit, and that is a bet I am willing to make." he concludes. 
 
 Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, also shared the same concerns with Rubio about the child tax credit. On Friday, Lee signaled he might be coming around in support of the bill in a statement to ABC News. 
 
 “Sens. Rubio, Heller, and Scott have done a tremendous job fighting for working families this week and they have secured a big win,” Lee said. “I look forward to reading the full text of the bill and, hopefully, supporting it.” 
 
 On Thursday, there were concerns the potential absence of Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., could complicate the bill's chances. 
 
 McCain, who is undergoing treatment for an aggressive form of brain cancer, was not at work Thursday in the U.S. Senate. His office reported that he is "receiving treatment at Walter Reed Medical Center for normal side effects of his ongoing cancer therapy." 
 
 House Speaker Paul Ryan said that considerations of absences in the Senate could impact which chamber takes the first votes. 
 
 Cheriss May/Getty Images 
 
 “There is discussion about this," Ryan said. "It's all about timing and managing absences in the Senate.” 
 
 GOP leaders are optimistic that they will get this done. 
 
 Asked if he’s confident this will pass, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, responded with just one word: “yes.”
– Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley is taking flak over comments he made about why the GOP aims to scrap or least mitigate the estate tax. In speaking to the Des Moines Register, Grassley said the tax often derided by Republicans as the "death tax" is unfair because it taxes earnings twice, first when people earn the money and again when they die and try to pass it on to their heirs. Then came the more controversial part: "I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies." As NPR notes, that triggered a flurry of online criticism from those who viewed Grassley's remarks as elitist. This tweet is typical of the reaction: "I'm sure those folks would love to invest, but they're a bit preoccupied just trying to make ends meet." The Washington Post notes that it also caught the attention of former Hillary Clinton spokesman Jesse Ferguson, who tweeted, "[I]f we gave that money in middle class tax cuts, they’d just waste it on hookers and blow. right?” But it wasn't just Democrats taking issue. At the conservative Hot Air site, Ed Morrissey says the comment "is everything right and wrong with the current Republican tax-reform effort in a nutshell." Grassley's first criticism of the "double dip" problem with the estate tax is spot-on correct, he writes. "In the very next breath, however, Grassley commits the same sin that has plagued the tax system for decades, which is Congress’ desire to commit social engineering through it." The House tax plan would eliminate the tax entirely in 2024, while the Senate version would double exemptions to $11 million for individuals and $22 million for couples.