Publicly, Sinema has said nothing about the measure, and her aides maintain she is still reviewing it. Behind the scenes, though, the senator has spoken with Democrats about at least two of the proposal’s tax provisions, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the sensitive negotiations.
The first involves tightening a policy that benefits hedge funds, private equity and real estate managers by taxing much of their compensation at a lower rate than most other earned income. The second sets a minimum tax on large, profitable companies that pay nothing to the US government. On both, Sinema’s exact requests are unclear, although she has previously expressed some openness to a minimum corporate tax. The people familiar with the talks cautioned that discussions are fluid.
The two proposals — along with other cost-cutting and revenue-raising components of the bill — together are expected to generate about $739 billion in new federal funds. The amount is enough to offset Democrats’ new spending on health care and climate, while still generating about $300 billion that can pay down the deficit over the next decade.
But resolving Sinema’s concerns could require party leaders to thread a narrow needle, as they labor to preserve a delicate deal that has satisfied Manchin and his fellow Democrats at a moment when some in the party share competing views about how best to respond to an economy facing major price spikes and other significant challenges. Republicans, meanwhile, vehemently opposed the bill, and many approached Sinema directly on the Senate floor late into Tuesday.
Speaking to reporters earlier in the day, Manchin acknowledged that he and Sinema are “exchanging texts back and forth.” Only minutes before his news conference, the two lawmakers spoke in the Senate, with Manchin kneeling talk Sinema as she presided over the chamber.
“She’ll make a decision based on the facts,” Manchin said afterwards.
Sinema’s office declined to comment.
For Democrats, their campaign to rethink the US tax code has been a difficult one more than a year in the making.
Since winning the House, Senate and White House in 2020, President Biden and allied lawmakers have pledged to unwind the tax cuts adopted under President Donald Trump in 2017. Democrats argue that the rate reductions have disproportionately benefited corporations and the wealthy; Republicans have maintained that the cuts were essential to fostering economic growth before the coronavirus pandemic.
Democrats initially aimed to raise tax rates as part of their initial economic package, the ill-fated, approximately $2 trillion Build Back Better Act. But they ultimately faltered after Sinema opposed any change to individual and corporate tax levels. Once Democrats removed the proposals last fall, seemingly securing Sinema’s support, Manchin soon after staked out his opposition to the bill and its price tag. It passed the House but never came to a vote in the Senate.
In rebooting Democrats’ economic agenda last week, Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (DN.Y.) worked out a new approach with Manchin. Rather than raising rates on all companies, the two men agreed to implement a 15 percent minimum tax that applies to corporations that pay nothing. This week, Democrats described the proposal as one of fairness, citing the fact that companies in “a lot of instances are paying a lower tax rate than firefighters and nurses,” as Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the leader of the Senate Finance Committee, put it on Tuesday.
Democrats also targeted the ways private equity and hedge fund managers are taxed on fees their clients pay them. Lawmakers said their plan amounts to closing the “carried interest loophole,” which allows these investment managers to pay taxes on those fees at the much lower rate charged on capital gains rather than at the rate most Americans pay on wages.
Democrats in recent days have lined up behind the plan, but Schumer and Manchin worked out those tax policy contours without Sinema’s immediate input. Much like Manchin, though, Sinema’s vote is crucial: Democrats must band together if they hope to adopt the bill under the process known as reconciliation. That procedure only works if all 50 Democrats and Vice President Harris band together to vote for the legislation, overcoming a GOP filibuster.
“We’re in touch with Senator Sinema, we’re in touch with all of the members. I’m very hopeful we’re all going to stay united and pass this bill,” Schumer said at a news conference Tuesday.
The discussions vexed some Democratic aides this week. While they acknowledged that Sinema had already made clear her concerns with the changes on carried interest, they thought she had supported an earlier attempt to impose a corporate minimum tax after Biden sought to rework the Build Back Better Act.
Sinema offered her views in October, appearing to parse her words carefully. In a tweetshe described it as a “common-sense step” that would ensure firms pay “a reasonable minimum corporate tax on their profits,” while adding she would be “continuing discussions” with the White House on economic issues.
Republicans, meanwhile, sought to increase pressure on Sinema and her fellow Democrats. On Tuesday, GOP lawmakers signaled they plan to force the issue on taxes once the bill comes to the floor, since reconciliation opens the door for them to offer unlimited amendments.
In a possible sign of their pressure campaign, Senate Republicans throughout the day were seen on the chamber floor huddling with Sinema directly. Speaking with reporters, Sen. John Thune (RS.D.), the chamber’s second-ranking Republican, blasted the policies as “big fat tax increases on American companies that create jobs, because we all know that’s going to be passed on” to Americans.
Tax experts have in recent days debated the merits of the minimum tax, with GOP opponents saying it could discourage corporations from claiming many of the incentives in the tax code designed to encourage corporate investment. Many Democratic tax experts are also skeptical of the merits of such a measure, and Treasury Department officials last year voiced concerns about the idea when the White House was pushing it.