Ken Cuccinelli, Republicans’ candidate for governor in Virginia, unveiled a major new tax plan on Tuesday, and it very much resembles proposals by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans from over the past year.

Cuccinelli debuted a new plan that would cut about $1.4 billion in taxes, namely by making major reductions to the state’s personal income and corporate tax rates. The Virginia attorney general’s plan would cut the personal income tax rate to 5 percent (down from 5.75 percent) and reduce the corporate tax rate to 4 percent (from 6 percent).

Cuccinelli sold his “Economic Growth and Virginia Jobs Plan” as a way to not only cap government spending in Virginia, but to also ease the burden on Virginia taxpayers and encourage new business investment.

Of course, it’s hardly unusual to hear a high-profile Republican candidate for office call for a regimen of tax cuts during the height of campaigns. But Cuccinelli’s similarities to many contemporary Republicans extends to the way in which he would finance the cost of the tax cuts, as well.

Per the website for Cuccinelli’s plan, the attorney general would help offset the $1.4 billion price tag for his tax cuts by indentifying and eliminating “outdated exemptions and loopholes that promote crony capitalism.”

Steve Helber / Steve Helber / AP file photo

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli gestures as he talks about the Supreme Court decision on the Health Care law during a press conference Thursday, June 28, 2012 in Richmond, Va.

That’s an approach remarkably similar to the kind preferred by Romney during his presidential campaign last year, and subsequently by congressional Republicans during their negotiations with President Barack Obama over the automatic tax hikes that almost took effect this year as part of the “fiscal cliff.”

Romney and the GOP lawmakers each largely declined to specify the exact loopholes and deductions they would target as part of their reforms. Because of the few details about the specifics of their plans, it made it difficult for analysts to account for the exact price tag of their tax proposals. Moreover, in the case of Romney, he was left vulnerable to charges that his plan would actually result in higher taxes for many middle class Americans, since if some of the costliest tax deductions – for instance, the home mortgage interest deduction – were eliminated, it would disproportionately affect middle class households.

A spokeswoman for Cuccinelli said that a task force called for by the plan would be put in charge of adding greater detail about which exemptions the gubernatorial candidate would eliminate to meet his target.

But in a campaign against Democrat Terry McAuliffe that has already become a murky battle of volleying characterizations about the other candidate and his proposals, it’s not hard to imagine the Cuccinelli plan becoming a ripe target for McAuliffe, unless more meat is added to the plan’s bones.

This story was originally published on Tue May 7, 2013 3:27 PM EDT

White House photo

President Barack Obama's tax return.

It’s getting close to Tax Day for all Americans – and that includes the inhabitants of the White House.

Last year, President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama paid an effective tax rate of 18.4 percent, the White House reported Friday, with an adjusted gross income of  $608,611 and a total of $112,214 in taxes.

The family gave almost a quarter of its income to charity, including a $103,871 donation to the Fischer House Foundation.

According to their website, the foundation “donates ‘comfort homes’ built on the grounds of major military and VA medical centers.” The homes allow family members of those who are hospitalized to stay closed to loved ones for free. The president donates the proceeds of the children’s book he released in 2010, “Of Thee I Sing” to the foundation.

Among the other entities that received charitable donations from the Obamas were the American Red Cross, the Boys and Girls Club and Sidwell Friends school, where their daughters are enrolled.

The Obamas also gave $5000 to the Palm Beach County Law Enforcement Fund. In September of 2012, a Palm Beach County motorcycle police officer was struck and killed as he was helping set up a rolling roadblock for the president’s motorcade.  

Check out the full tax return here (.pdf)

The Obama’s income has dropped over his presidency, as royalties from his books have tapered off. In 2009, the couple reported a gross income of about $5.5 million. By last year, the Obamas reported an income of $789,674 on which they paid $162,074 in taxes and gave $172,130 to charity. Their effective federal tax rate that year was 20.5 percent.

The president has campaigned on the idea that higher-income Americans – including himself - should pay “their fair share,” while those with incomes under $250,000 should not be subject to tax increases.

Vice President Joe Biden and his wife Jill reported a gross income of $385,072 and paid $87,851 in federal taxes in 2012. They gave just $7,190 to charity – including donations valued at $2000 in furniture, household goods and exercise equipment. That totals about 2 percent of their 2012 income.

And if you ever wondered who exactly pays the salaries of two of the most important people in the world, here's your answer: The president is paid by an agency of the Department of Defense (the Defense Finance and Accounting Service), while the vice president is paid by the U.S. Senate.

This story was originally published on Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:07 PM EDT

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor sought to lead Republicans past their dollars-and-cents fights of the last two years, arguing Tuesday for a more expansive agenda that resonates with a broader scope of Americans.

As the GOP works to redefine itself in the wake of an electoral drubbing last fall, Cantor outlined a series of policies he said Republicans would pursue over the next two years. The agenda includes staples of Republican politics — tax and entitlement reforms, for instance — but also education, immigration and research and development, particularly in the sciences.

Recommended: Obama calls for at least short-term fix with cuts, revenue to avoid sequester

"In Washington, over the past few weeks and months, our attention has been on cliffs, debt ceilings and budgets, on deadlines and negotiations," Cantor said at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank in Washington. "But today, I'd like to focus our attention on what lies beyond these fiscal debates. Over the next two years, the House majority will pursue an agenda based on a shared vision of creating the conditions for health, happiness and prosperity for more Americans and their families."

Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., speaks to the media following a Republican Conference meeting on Feb. 5, 2013 at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

The speech fits squarely within the rubric of reinvention sought by the GOP at the advent of President Barack Obama's second term. The Virginia congressman offered generally familiar proposals, couched in the rhetoric of middle class advancement. This "softer" approach to policy-making squares with an emerging Republican consensus that the party does not necessarily need to change its policies so much as frame them in a way that is more relevant to middle class, minority, and women voters.

To that extent, Cantor was flanked at moments during his speech by students from schools in inner-city Washington, a master's student from China looking to stay in America, a nurse from Baltimore looking for a more flexible work schedule, and a former intern of Cantor's who benefited from improved medical technology.

Cantor sought with his speech to put a newer, more accessible face on the Republican Party; whether he'll succeed is a question that might not be answered for two or four more years.

First Read: Cantor's shift on immigration

One policy shift Cantor did announce was in regard to immigration. The No. 2 House Republican embraced the thrust of the so-called DREAM Act, a piece of immigration legislation looking to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children a pathway to citizenship.

"It is time to provide an opportunity for legal residence and citizenship for those who were brought to this country as children and who know no other home," he said.

Other points of emphasis were familiar to any observers of the contemporary GOP.

On education, Cantor called for increased access to vouchers, more efficient spending per student, cost transparency in college tuition and fuller disclosure to students about the career prospects associated with different degrees.

On immigration, Cantor endorsed easier access to green cards to immigrants with high-level degrees, a reformed guest worker program and stronger employee verification tools.

And in an appeal to middle class workers, Cantor endorsed giving all employees greater flex-time at work and simpler simpler ways to file taxes.

On top of this, Cantor appealed to Republican staples: comprehensive tax reform and reforms to Medicare (including streamlined provider networks, and increased leeway for states to administer their own programs).

The recurring theme, though, for Cantor involved an appeal directed intently toward middle class voters.

"Government policy should aim to strike a balance between what is needed to advance the next generation, what we can afford, what is a federal responsibility and what is necessary to ensure our children are safe, healthy and able to reach their dreams," Cantor said.

Is the nation better off than it was four years ago?

The answer largely depends on the statistics you pick.

With President Barack Obama beginning his second term, there are plenty of numbers suggesting that the country is on more solid footing than it was when he first took office on Jan. 20, 2009.

The Dow Jones Industrial average is up 5,550 points since then. The economy is growing (instead of contracting). Consumer confidence has nearly doubled (though it remains below where it was before the Great Recession). And a larger percentage of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction (but a majority still think it’s on the wrong track).

On the other hand, there’s data indicating that the nation isn’t better off than it was four years ago – and that the Great Recession continues to take a toll on families. Median household income (adjusted for inflation) is lower than it was in 2009. And more Americans live below the poverty level than they did four years ago.

And some numbers are exactly the same. The current unemployment rate is at 7.8%, which is where it was in Jan. 2009 (though it’s down from a high of 10% in Oct. 2009). And right now, there are roughly 49 million Americans without health insurance, which is identical to where it was in 2009. (The health-insurance mandate under the health-care law doesn’t kick in until 2014.)

Here are other figures over the last four years:

-- The number of U.S. troops in Iraq has dwindled from nearly 140,000 to just 200, while the presence in Afghanistan has increased from 34,000 to 66,000.

-- The federal public debt has increased from $10.6 trillion in Jan. 2009 to $16.4 trillion now.

-- The number of Democrats serving in the U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and in governorships across the country has declined.

Below is a look at Obama’s presidency – so far – by the numbers. The “then” figure is the best-available figure for when Obama was taking office in 2009. And the “now” is the most recent figure. First Read, in 2009, ran a statistical then-vs.-now comparison of George W. Bush’s presidency.

Unemployment rate

Then: 7.8% (Jan. 2009)

Now: 7.8%  (Dec. 2012)

Dow Jones Industrial Average

Then: 7,949.09 (close as of Jan. 20, 2009)

Now: 13,534.89 (close as of Jan. 15, 2013)

Gross Domestic Product

Then: -5.3% (1^st quarter of 2009)

Now: +3.1% (3^rd quarter of 2012)

Consumer Confidence (1985=100)

Then: 37.4 (Jan. 2009)

Now: 65.1 (Dec. 2012)

Americans who believe the country is headed in the right direction

Then: 26% of adults (Jan. 2009 NBC/WSJ poll)

Now: 41% of adults (Dec. 2012 NBC/WSJ poll)

Median household income (adjusted for inflation)

Then: $52,195 (Census data for 2009)

Now: $50,054 (Census data for 2011)

Americans living below the poverty level

Then: 43.6 million (Census data for 2009)

Now: 46.2 million (Census data for 2011)

Americans without health insurance

Then: 49.0 million (Census data for 2009)

Now: 48.6 million (Census data for 2011)

Americans receiving food stamps

Then: 33.5 million (average for 2009)

Now: 46.6 million (average for 2012)

Federal budget deficit

Then: -1.4 trillion (FY 2009)

Now: -$1.1 trillion (FY 2012 projected)

Federal public debt

Then: $10.6 trillion (Jan. 20, 2009)

Now: $16.4 trillion (Jan. 14, 2013)

Federal spending as a percentage of GDP

Then: 25.2% (FY 2009)

Now: 24.3% (FY 2012 projected)

Median sales price of new homes

Then: $208,600 (Jan. 2009)

Now: $246,200 (Nov. 2012)

Number of Democrats in U.S. House of Representatives

Then: 257 (2009)

Now: 201 (2013)

Number of Democrats (plus independents caucusing with Dems) in U.S. Senate

Then: 58 (Jan. 2009)

Now: 55 (Jan. 2013)

Number of Democratic governors

Then: 28 (2009)

Now: 19 (2013)

Number of U.S. troops in Iraq

Then: 139,500 (Jan. 2009)

Now: 200 (Jan. 2013)

Number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan

Then: 34,400 (Jan. 2009)

Now: 66,000 (Jan. 2013)

NBC’s Courtney Kube contributed to this article.

Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA), someone many think has an eye on 2016, made an announcement today that could have an impact on his future ambitions.

Virginia has a transportation problem in Northern Virginia. Congestion and tangled roads are the norm. McDonnell wants to try and fix it, but it all requires money. Lots of money.

Today, he proposed eliminating the gas tax, but raising the sales tax and increasing fees on things like hybrid cars and alternative-fuel vehicles.

The Virginian-Pilot:

Central to the governor's plan, whose component parts would raise an estimated $3.1 billion for transportation over 5 years, is elimination of Virginia's 17.5-cent per gallon gasoline tax for most passenger vehicles -- the levy would remain in place for diesel fuel. Virginia would be the first state to go that route if it dumps the fuel tax, according to state officials. ...

McDonnell would replace the state surcharge on gas by increasing the state's current 5-cent sales and use tax to 5.8 cents and dedicating all additional revenue generated from that to transportation. Even at that level, state officials say Virginia's sales tax would remain lower than rates in surrounding states.

The administration's argument for the swap is that the buying power of the gas tax, a key road revenue source, continues to dwindle as construction costs rise and vehicle fuel efficiency standards improve. ...

Aside from the tax swap proposal, other elements of McDonnell's plan include:

- A $15 increase in annual registration fees on motor vehicles.

- An annual $100 fee on alternative fuel vehicles, including hybrids.

- Another attempt to dedicate a greater slice of existing sales tax revenue -- from the current .5 percent to .75 percent over five years -- to roads.

- Receiving more sales tax revenue from online retailers, a plan contingent Congress' passage of a law giving states the authority to compel such merchants to collect taxes on sales made through their sites and remit them to Virginia.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday that Republicans will not support more revenue-raising measures in future fights over the nation's deficit, saying that President Barack Obama should lead on addressing spending cuts alone.

"That's over," McConnell said on NBC's Meet the Press when asked about possible new streams of revenue through taxes or tax code reforms.

"We've resolved this issue," McConnell said. "We don't have this problem because we tax too little, we have it because we spend way, way too much. So we've settled the tax issue and now we have to address the single biggest threat to America's future, and that's our excessive spending."

McConnell helped broker an eleventh-hour deal to avert the fiscal cliff last week, a bill that included the expiration of Bush-era tax rates for some of the wealthiest Americans. On Sunday, McConnell defended that deal, opposed by many House Republicans despite an overwhelming bipartisan deal in the Senate.

"Look, this was not a tax increase," he said of the fiscal cliff agreement. "It was not the kind of complete deal we'd like because we want to cut spending but we did stabilize taxes. The tax issue's behind us." 

McConnell did not answer repeated questions about whether or not he would use the threat of a government shutdown to force Democrats' hand on spending cuts.

"I know what your question is," he told host David Gregory. "What I'm telling you is I have not given up on the president stepping up to the plate and tackling the biggest issue confronting the country.

Updated at 12:32 a.m. ET: An agreement to stave off the harshest and most immediate consequences of the fiscal cliff won approval in the House late Tuesday. President Barack Obama signed the law on Wednesday night, the battle over which foreshadowed more fights with Congress over spending.

Following a day of hectic wrangling on Capitol Hill — where the prospects for passing the bipartisan, Senate legislation regarding the fiscal cliff hung in the balance for much of New Year's Day — the House voted 257 to 167 to pass the belated compromise measure over the objections of many conservative Republicans.

The legislation takes steps toward resolving the combination of automatic tax hikes and spending cuts that took effect at midnight on Jan. 1. It preserves tax rates as they were at the end of 2012, except for those individuals earning more than $400,000 and households earning over $450,000. It also allows taxes on capital gains and dividends to go up, and extends benefits of the unemployed. Additionally, the Senate bill delays the onset of the "sequester" — the swift, automatic spending cuts — for two months. 

Fiscal cliff compromise leaves few satisfied

"Thanks to the votes of Democrats and Republicans in Congress I will sign a law that raises the taxes on the wealthiest of Americans," Obama said in remarks at the White House Tuesday, "while preventing a middle-class tax hike."

The House vote laid bare some of the internal ideological divisions to plague the GOP over the past two years. More Republican congressmen (151) voted against the Senate bill than for it (85), meaning that Democrats' support was needed to advance the final deal. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, took the rare step of casting a vote, and did so in favor of the legislation. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the former Republican vice presidential nominee, also supported the package. But Boehner's top two lieutenants, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., each opposed the deal.

"Now the focus turns to spending," Boehner said in a statement following the House vote. "The American people re-elected a Republican majority in the House, and we will use it in 2013 to hold the president accountable for the ‘balanced’ approach he promised, meaning significant spending cuts and reforms to the entitlement programs that are driving our country deeper and deeper into debt."

While the last-minute action on Capitol Hill essentially mitigates much of the risk posed to the U.S. economic recovery by the fiscal cliff, it hardly brings resolution to the bitter and often intractable fight in Washington over taxes and spending. The first half of 2013 will feature battles in Congress over raising the debt limit, continuing basic government funding and the expiration of this two-month delay in the sequester. 

Bipartisan outrage after House skips vote on $60 billion Sandy aid bill

Obama nodded to those looming fights in his remarks Tuesday evening, renewing his call for "balance" in any solution in the coming year to address deficits and debts. But the president also sternly warned Congress against using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip, as Republicans had in summer of 2011.

"While I'll negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether to pay the bills they have racked up," Obama said.

PhotoBlog: Deal done, Obama heads back to Hawaii with a weary wink

The fiscal cliff itself was the product of discord in Congress resolving those very issues. And the difficulty in attaining even this less ambitious piece of legislation — versus the kind of "grand bargain" Obama had first sought in talks with Republicans — offered a cautionary tale for the 113th Congress, in which the House and the Senate remain controlled by the same parties as during the past two years. 

Squabbling
And even for much of Tuesday, House approval of the fiscal legislation — which was negotiated by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Vice President Joe Biden — was far from certain. GOP leaders were forced to cajole conservatives who complained the fallback deal contained insufficient spending cuts. Only after it became clear that Republicans wouldn't have the votes to amend the Senate proposal — which the upper chamber said it wouldn't even consider — did House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, bring the bill to the floor. 

The squabbling was familiar to any observers of Congress during the past two years. This divide almost resulted in a government shutdown and a default on the national debt in 2011. It again threatened Tuesday to allow the painful, across-the-board tax hikes and spending cuts to play out just as the U.S. economic recovery showed signs of accelerating.

PhotoBlog: See images of Congress working overtime to avoid fiscal cliff

And this deal just approved by Congress in the waning hours of 2013's first day all but ensures that much of the coming year will be dominated by similar battles in Washington. Republicans are hopeful they might be able to extract more spending cuts and entitlement reforms with the government up against other deadlines, like the one needed this spring to authorize more government borrowing. 

That could complicate Obama's already-ambitious second term agenda. The president said just this past Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he will seek comprehensive immigration reform legislation and new laws to address gun violence.

The United States Congress could reprise its role as the Grinch who stole Christmas, as lawmakers continue to bicker toward an end-of-year fiscal cliff deadline that threatens to drag legislative drama through the holidays.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told fellow Republicans on Wednesday to not make any serious plans around or after Christmas, implying that work on resolving the fiscal cliff would extend well through the holiday.

"We can do things very quickly, but this is not something we can do very easily, at least as far as bill-drafting goes," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters on Tuesday. "I think it’s going to be extremely difficult to get it done before Christmas, but it could be done."

Yet these politicians are engaging in just the latest version of a yuletide game of beat-the-clock in Washington. 

Christmas trees, menorahs and other festive adornments have been placed at the White House and Capitol, but a glum sentiment has overtaken Washington. And it’s all thanks to the emerging annual tradition of late-December partisan standoffs as the president and Congress race to complete unfinished business.

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images

Capitol Hill police check an unidentified man dressed as Santa Claus with a metal detector as he enters the U.S. Capitol on his way to Speaker of the House John Boehner's office on December 12, 2012 in Washington, DC.

And while that’s meant long hours for lawmakers, Hill staffers and reporters, it’s also resulted in a tremendous amount of uncertainty for many Americans. The last few holiday seasons found some shoppers hitting the stores with scarcely any idea of how much their paychecks would be taxed in the new year. And in 2009, the fate of President Barack Obama’s closely-watched health care overhaul rested on the outcome of an early-morning vote on Christmas Eve.

This year is no different. Congress has known since the summer of 2011 that the fiscal cliff – the automatic expiration of the 2001 Bush tax cuts, and the automatic spending cuts set forth by the 2011 debt ceiling deal – would spring into place at the end of December unless acted upon.

Indeed, the automatic spending cuts, which fall heavily upon the defense budget, were designed to be so distasteful as to give Republicans and Democrats time and an incentive to act well before the end-of-year deadline to reach a deal.

Even if Republicans and Obama were able to reach an agreement today, it would take at least a few days to translate that agreement into legislative language. And once that’s drafted, House rules require that the legislation be posted online (for review) 72 hours before a vote. In short, time is running out to reach a deal before the end of the year, let alone Christmas.

The historical idea of a “lame-duck” Congress – a snooze-worthy session in which defeated or retiring lawmakers do little of substance – seems almost antiquated, given the frenzied and substantial work left for legislators during recent holiday seasons.

It almost seems as though lawmakers accomplish more during December than they do during the rest of the year.

Last year, it was the threat of a hike in the payroll tax rate that extended late into the holiday season. Obama and Republicans wrangled over whether a yearlong, 2 percent payroll tax cut – which they authorized in the waning days of 2010 – should be extended for another year.

At the time, Republicans argued that the cost of the payroll tax cuts should be offset with other spending cuts, a position which Obama said was unusual, given the other tax cuts Republicans had previously proposed without a similar offset. The GOP ultimately relented, passing an extension of the payroll tax (only for two months) on Dec. 22.

Of course, that standoff was the byproduct of the previous December’s showdown, which also played a role in setting up the current fiscal cliff currently beguiling lawmakers.

That December featured a negotiation between Obama and Republicans – who had just delivered a “shellacking” to Democrats, in the president’s words, and retaken control of the House – over the fate of the 2001 Bush tax cuts.

Republicans reached a deal with Obama at a relatively early point, on Dec. 6, on a package that preserved existing tax rates for an additional two years past the end of the 2010, when the tax cuts first sought by President George W. Bush were scheduled to expire. In exchange, Obama won an extension in unemployment benefits, which were also set to expire. The president signed the bill on Dec. 17.

It would be easy to look at the record and assign blame for the discord during these past three Decembers to the differences between the Republican-held House and a Democratic White House. But it was the preceding December (in 2009), when Democrats enjoyed strong majorities in both chambers, that saw one of the most high-wire votes in Congress.

The Senate convened on Christmas Eve morning that year to hold a historic, party-line vote on approving the upper chamber’s version of Obama’s health care reform law. Members of the Senate gathered at 7:05 a.m. – giving them enough time to travel home to rejoin their families for Christmas – to vote 60 to 39 to give final approval to the bill that would ultimately serve as the basis for “Obamacare.”

The vote ended months of partisan strife and wrangling over the fate of health care reform, and was designed to advance the legislation to the House before Massachusetts could elect a senator to replace the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, whose seat was held by a placeholder, Democratic Sen. Paul Kirk.

The real drama took place, though, in the weeks preceding that vote. Democrats worked around-the-clock to secure the 60 votes they needed to pass the health care law, and Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson didn’t agree to become the 60th decisive vote until Saturday, Dec. 20.

His support prompted a series of procedural votes to move the health care legislation toward a final vote at 1:05 a.m. on  Dec. 21. But even that vote was almost imperiled by a major blizzard that blanketed Washington and crippled transportation throughout the city, forcing senators to camp out at the Capitol.

Those dark-of-night votes could become another staple of this year’s scramble to reach a deal to resolve the fiscal cliff, the countdown to which will mimic the revelers in Times Square on New Year’s Eve unless Congress and Obama can soon reach an accord.

An overwhelming majority of Americans want Congress and the Obama White House to reach a deal featuring both tax increases and spending cuts to avert the so-called fiscal cliff, according to the latest national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Click here for full results from the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (pdf)

In fact, majorities of Democrats, Republicans and political independents each support such a deal.

Yet respondents are split over whether any kind of agreement can be reached, and nearly seven in 10 believe that the coming year will feature Democrats and Republicans in Congress showing little willingness to come to an agreement on important matters.

Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, says the public is sending this one-word message to Washington: compromise.

“Doing something trumps doing nothing,” Hart said.

Related: Boehner: 'Serious differences' separate GOP from Obama

The survey – conducted a month after November’s election – also shows a positive uptick in opinion toward President Barack Obama, and more negative views about defeated GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and the Republican Party. The poll also finds that a majority of Americans now support gay marriage.

‘Hints of a thaw’

According to the poll, a combined 68 percent of Americans say that the fiscal cliff – the looming combination of tax increases and spending cuts set to take place at the beginning of next year if nothing is done – is either a “very serious” or “fairly serious” problem.

A similar two-thirds of respondents are willing to accept an increase in taxes or cuts in federal government programs they care about to reach an agreement to avoid the problem.

Asked another way, 65 percent say leaders in Congress should find a compromise to reduce the budget deficit, even if that means Democrats would need to accept targeted spending cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and that Republicans would need to accept targeted increases in tax rates.

By comparison, just 28 percent believe that leaders should stick to their traditional positions on the deficit – even if that means Congress goes over the fiscal cliff, triggering those automatic spending cuts and tax increases.

“There are hints of a thaw here, compared to previous data we’ve seen,” McInturff says.

Indeed, for the first time in the poll, a majority of Republicans (59 percent) want GOP leaders in the House and Senate to make compromises in order to gain consensus in the current budget debate.

Previously, in 2011, majorities of Republicans said they preferred GOP leaders to stick to their positions rather than make compromises.

And the percentage of Democrats who favor compromise on this question (70 percent) is now at an all-time high in the survey.

Who’s to blame if there isn’t a deal? Everyone

Yet the public is split – 48 percent of respondents are optimistic, and 48 percent are pessimistic – over whether Congress will be able to reach consensus to avoid the fiscal cliff. And another 69 percent believe that the next year on Capitol Hill will be marked by division and little willingness to compromise.

If there is no compromise on the fiscal cliff and the automatic tax increases and spending cuts go into effect at the beginning of next year, 24 percent say they will blame congressional Republicans more, while 19 percent will point the finger at Obama and congressional Democrats.

But a majority of respondents (56 percent) say they’ll blame both sides equally.

Still, twice as many Americans say they trust the president more in handling this fiscal situation (38 percent) than House Speaker John Boehner and the congressional Republicans (19 percent).

And significant majorities believe Obama holds a clear mandate from the election on issues related to this subject:

• 68 percent say he has a mandate on cutting taxes for families earning less than $250,000 per year
• 65 percent say he has a mandate on reducing the deficit by both increasing taxes on the wealthy and reducing federal spending
• And 59 percent say he has a mandate on eliminating the Bush-era tax cuts for household income over $250,000 a year.

Obama’s lift vs. the GOP’s decline

Speaking of Obama, the poll shows an uptick in his numbers after his victory in last month’s presidential election.

Fifty-three percent of adults approve of his overall job performance, and 49 percent approve of his handling of the economy – higher marks on these questions than at any time during the 2012 campaign.

Another 53 percent say they feel either “optimistic and confident” or “satisfied and hopeful” Obama will do a good job as president, which is up three points from Oct. 2012.

“Any president has a little bit of a lift heading into the first few months of any new term in office,” McInturff, the GOP pollster, says.

But if Obama is getting a lift after the election, the Republican Party is seeing a further decline.

The GOP’s favorable/unfavorable rating in the poll now stands at 30 percent/45 percent (minus-15 points), which is down from 36 percent/43 percent (minus-7) right before the election.

That’s compared with the Democratic Party’s 44 percent/35 percent rating (plus-9 points).

What’s more, asked to give a word or short phrase to describe the Republican Party, 65 percent offered a negative comment, including more than half of Republicans.

Some of the responses: “Bad,” “weak,” “negative,” “uncompromising,” “need to work together,” “broken,” “disorganized” and “lost.”

By contrast, 37 percent gave negative descriptions of the Democratic Party, while 35 percent were positive.

“Republicans have gone off the image cliff,” says Hart, the Democratic pollster.

“Elections have consequences,” McInturff adds about the GOP. “And among those consequences is the cost of losing.”

The consequences of losing also exist for Romney, whom Obama defeated in November.

Romney’s favorable/unfavorable rating in the poll is 35 percent/44 percent (minus-9 points), down from his 43 percent/44 percent score (minus-1) before the election. Much of that drop comes from Republicans and conservatives. 

Majority supports same-sex marriage

Finally, for the first time ever in the NBC/WSJ poll, a majority of respondents – 51 percent – support same-sex marriage.

That percentage in support is up from 30 percent in 2004, 41 percent in 2009 and 49 percent in March 2012, demonstrating how quickly public opinion on this issue has changed in just eight years.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Dec. 6-9 of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents), and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

President Obama expressed optimism in a “framework” for deficit reduction being worked out before Washington disperses for the holidays as he urged Congress to act quickly and extend tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans.

“I believe that both parties can agree on a framework that does that in the coming weeks. In fact, my hope is to get this done before Christmas,” he said, flanked by people who the White House said responded to emails asking them how a preserved lower tax rate would help them.

He said an immediate extension of tax cuts for those Americans would allow Democrats and Republicans to focus on long-term deficit reduction.

“Families and small businesses would therefore be able to enjoy some peace of mind heading into Christmas and heading into the New Year. And it would give us more time than next year to work together on a comprehensive plan to bring down our deficits.”

He also alluded to recent statements by Senate and House Republicans expressing a willingness to consider previously non-negotiable positions, including GOP Rep. Tom Cole’s statement yesterday that Republicans should in fact deal with tax cuts for the wealthiest earners separately from those Democrats want to extend now.

 “I'm glad to see, if you've been reading the papers lately, that more and more Republicans in Congress seem to be agreeing with this idea that we should have a balanced approach,” Obama said.

But House Speaker John Boehner Wednesday firmly rejected Cole’s suggestion and reiterated his position that Republicans are willing to consider new revenue but oppose a hike in any income tax rates.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

President Barack Obama greets middle class people who joined him on stage after he delivered remarks about extending tax cuts for middle class people during an event in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building November 28, 2012 in Washington, DC.

The president’s event, held in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building’s South Court Auditorium, was meant to highlight a new social media campaign intended to get Americans vocal about what keeping an extra $2,000 on their paycheck would mean – similarly to what the White House did to encourage Americans to get involved over

The catchphrase for the new campaign? “My2K,” or #My2K for those on Twitter.

“Tweet using the hashtag My2K or email, you know, post it on -- on a member of Congress' Facebook wall. Do what it takes to communicate a sense of urgency. We don't have a lot of time here. We've got a few weeks to get this thing done,” Obama said.

“It's too important for Washington to screw this up,” he continued. 

Some Republicans appear to be softening what was once a hard stance on their no-taxes pledge as the end-of-the-year deadline on the so-called “fiscal cliff” approaches.

But it’s not clear how far they would go – if they would raise rates on the wealthiest, as President Obama wants, or if they are simply willing to go along with eliminating some loopholes and deductions to raise revenue. And those who have been outspoken on the topic thus far are not seen as the key players in the ongoing negotiations.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Select Committee on Intelligence ranking member Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) gets on the Senate subway as he leaves after a hearing on the Benghazi attack November 16, 2012 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.

“I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia told a local TV station from his home state. “If we do it his way then we’ll continue in debt, and I just have a disagreement with him about that.”

Chambliss is one of several congressional Republicans who have indicated they might break with an anti-tax pledge pushed by activist Grover Norquist.

On the Sunday shows and Monday morning TV, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bob Corker (R-TN), as well as Reps. Eric Cantor (R-VA) -- the House minority leader -- and Peter King (R-NY), joined Chambliss in downplaying the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge.” Norquist’s 58-word pledge has been a mainstay in Republican politics since 1986. In 2011, every GOP presidential hopeful, including Mitt Romney (and excluding Jon Huntsman) signed it.

“I agree with Grover — we shouldn’t raise rates,” Graham said on ABC, “but I think Grover is wrong when it comes to we can’t cap deductions and buy down debt.” Graham added, “I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform.”

Corker told CBS on Monday: “I’m not obligated on the pledge. I made Tennesseans aware, I was just elected, the only thing I’m honoring is the oath I take when I serve, when I’m sworn in this January.”

King, of New York, said on Meet the Press Sunday: “I agree entirely with Saxby Chambliss -- a pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago, is for that Congress... I think everything should be on the table.”

Norquist, in fact, says the fact that no House Republican has voted for a tax increase in 22 years is directly a product of his pledge. Norquist does not just mandate that lawmakers not vote for tax increases, but also that any bill they sign onto has to be “revenue neutral.”

In other words, cutting deductions and loopholes, for example, would also be out if not offset by further tax cuts. But Republicans and Democrats face an end-of-the-year deadline to try and figure out a way to avert the steep military and domestic spending cuts and taxes going up for everyone when the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year.

That some senators appear ready to talk revenue is not as significant as what House members say. It is widely believed that a deal would be struck between the White House and the House GOP, not with the Senate.

House Speaker John Boehner has said that “revenue” is on the table, but the president wants to raise rates for the wealthiest. Obama campaigned on the idea, but it’s not at all clear whether the House Republican rank-and-file would sign on to any rate increase.

Cantor, who wields some influence with the GOP conference’s more conservative members, is seen as more of a keystone, and he, too, seemed willing to go along with at least some revenue increases.

“There has been a lot said about this pledge,” Cantor said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Monday. “When I go to the constituents, it’s not about that pledge. It’s about trying to solve problems. House Speaker John Boehner went to the White House and said, ‘Hey, Republicans in the House are willing to put revenues on the table.’ That’s a big move.”

“We were elected to fix problems,” Cantor said, before adding, “Even if you raise all those taxes, it doesn’t fix your problem.”

In a follow-up interview, Cantor’s office stressed that he remains against raising tax rates.

“Republicans aren't against tax rate hikes because of any one man or pledge,” spokeswoman Megan Whittemore said. “We are against hiking rates, because they're bad for the economy and hurt jobs. We've put ideas on the table that bring more money in while keeping tax rates where they are to produce job growth. It's now time for President Obama to put his ideas on the table for spending cuts and entitlement reform if he truly embraces a balanced approach.”

For his part, Norquist isn’t backing down. In a statement to NBC News, he took shots at the GOP senators and expressed confidence that no one would violate the pledge.

"Chambliss has been pushing this line since he joined the Gang of Six,” Norquist said. “Lindsey Graham has for two years said he would raise taxes if he got a 10:1 ratio of spending cuts through entitlement reform that could not be undone. There is no news in these two 'changing.'”

And he added, “They have not voted for a tax hike. They have had impure thoughts on present. Their impure thoughts did not change a single GOP vote in the 2011 fight over the debt ceiling which had a real deadline looming. One might have argued that the pledge died in 1990 when a sitting president and many in House leadership broke the pledge. However, the opposite happened, the pledge became more powerful when breaking it was seen to have very real consequence in 1992. After the 1994 election a majority of the House and Senate had signed the pledge."