President Obama this week announced a tentative deal with congressional Republicans to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans for two years in exchange for a 13-month extension in unemployment benefits. While the deal included other popular tax credits and incentives, one provison in particular has drawn fire from progressives and Democrats in Congress: reinstating the currently-expired estate tax. In what the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein called an “ugly surprise” in the deal, Obama and the GOP agreed to exempt inheritances up to $5 million and to set the tax rate at 35 percent instead of an exemption at $3.5 million and the tax rate at 45 percent, which the House passed last year.

Democrats have been publicly expressing their displeasure with this giveaway to the rich. And today on MSNBC, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) called the estate tax measure “egregious” and said he may not vote for the deal with it in place:

VAN HOLLEN: This was not the best deal especially as it relates to the very egregious provision to provide a huge bonanza on the estate tax. … It has no beneficial economic result. … That provision would create huge concerns and possibly be a deal breaker. [...] This provision makes it very, very difficult for me to support it in its current form.

Also today, Fox News host Megyn Kelly defended the estate tax deal in an interview with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) — who has also been critical of it — saying that these Americans shouldn’t be taxed twice. Weiner pointed out the obvious flaw in that line of thinking:

KELLY: I don’t have a five million dollar estate, I’d like to someday, but if I work all my life and I pay my taxes on my income and then I die and I want to pass on what it would be great if it were a $5 million estate to my kids, why should I pay the government again? Why should there be a 35 or 45 or 55 percent tax on that again?

WEINER: You aren’t paying anything in that case because you’ll be dead. … Do you know how much this adds to our debt? It adds an enormous amount. No one can be in favor of that and then come on your show and say, “Oh I’m so concerned about the debt!”

Watch it:

The Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo notes that, if the tax cut compromise goes through, the estate tax rate will rest at its second lowest level since 1931 (outside of the zero percent rate this year).

Last month, responding to Rep.-elect Andy Harris’ (R-MD) hypocritical demand for government-sponsored benefits, Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) began circulating a letter among his Democratic colleagues calling on Harris and other members of Congress who want to repeal the new health care law to forego their own government health care plans. Two incoming Republican freshmen — Rep.-elect Mike Kelly (PA) and Rep.-elect Bobby Schilling (IL) — agreed to the deal immediately and now two others, Reps. Tim Walberg (MI) and Bill Johnson (OH) have also pledged to opt out of the federal employees’ health program:

– TIM WALBERG (R-MI): “Walberg didn’t take the federal plan during his first term in Congress, either. Walberg receives free health-care stemming from his 16-years in the state legislature.”

– BILL JOHNSON (R-OH): “This is one substantial way I can show that my commitment to the people of eastern and southern Ohio is to help them, not to gain exclusive benefits for myself,” he said, in a news release issued by his office. Johnson is not be going to be without health insurance coverage, however. He has health insurance available to him as a retired U.S. Air Force officer.

In reality, these two congressmen are still receiving health benefits from the government. Walberg is drawing on state benefits, while Johnson will be dependent on the military system, which is funded with federal taxes. Kelly and Schilling, meanwhile, will receive employer-sponsored coverage through their businesses. Meanwhile, the Wonk Room argues that if Republicans were really serious about “listening to the people who sent us here” — as they argued after the midterm elections — they would all opt out of their government-sponsored insurance plans.

Last year, the El Paso, Texas City Council voted 7-1 to extend city employee health benefits to their domestic partners, including LGBT couples. But while many celebrated the progressive move, the right-wing El Paso Word of Life Church’s Pastor — and self-advertised exorcist — Tom Brown slammed the council for “condoning immorality” and giving “a huge black eye to democracy.” Incensed over the idea of equal treatment, Brown spearheaded a ballot initiative to rescind these benefits, which passed this November by a 55 percent majority.

But, in his eagerness to rob gay and unmarried partners of their health benefits, Brown’s group quickly drew up the bill “wording on its own” because he “could not find a lawyer” to advise. By doing so, Brown’s blow to equal rights also doles a “black eye” to 200 El Paso retirees and public servants who will now lose their health benefits on Jan. 1 too:

[City Attorney Charlie] McNabb said his office had identified 200 people who would lose benefits under the language of the referendum that voters approved by a 55-45 percent ratio.

Only 19 gay and unmarried partners of city employees receive benefits under the ordinance voters rejected last week. But McNabb’s staff found that some retirees and others would lose their benefits because of the wording of the ballot issue.[...]

Some are spouses of deceased city employees and some are retirees with other jobs. Still others work for city agencies such as the Public Service Board and the 911 district but are not legally city employees.

In addition, City Council members have city health benefits but technically are not city employees, McNabb said.

Not only same-sex and unmarried partners, but employees of the 911 call center, retired firefighters, retired policemen, and even foster children will lose health benefits because of Brown’s bigotry. While admitting that he only intended to strip the 19 same-sex couples of their benefits, Brown said he has “no regrets” for doing “what was right,” and that city officials “have to respect the will of the public.”

Unsure if the public actually knew what they voted for, the City Council tried but failed by a 4-3 vote to vacate the so-called “family values” benefits ordinance two weeks after it passed. Brown then proposed another ballot initiative to “strip the city council of its power to amend or rescind voter-approved measures. “I’m feeling a call from God to get more involved in government,” he said.

El Paso’s normally “low-profile” gay community, however, is getting more involved too by organizing “Love” rallies outside of Brown’s church with posters reading “Jesus wouldn’t take away health benefits” and “Love they neighbor gay or straight.” And while Brown thinks “it’s a little late” for their protests, the public may get another chance to right the wrong. On Jan. 1 when the new law takes effect, the City Council “has plans to introduce an amendment to the charter to give voters a clear choice of who should get benefits.”