Senate votes 96-3 on WHAT?

I don't get it.   The senate has voted 96 to 3 on something.  That in itself is pretty amazing.  But what they were in such agreement on is dumbfounding.   With conservatives so adamant about reducing the deficit and liberals so determined to reinforce the safety net for the needy, why did either side vote for this bill?  And why was it so nearly unanimous?

Here's what the bill does:  it extends all kinds of tax credits, mostly to the benefit of corporate interests, without any corresponding cuts to pay for them.    Here's the kind of things that will get tax breaks:  allowing multinational companies to avoid paying U. S. tax on income earned abroad;  deferred tax payments on royalty income;  construction costs for NASCAR speedways;   owners of race horses.

Supposedly to get liberal support for the bill, they gave a few crumbs, like write-offs for research and development costs, teachers purchases of school supplies, and homeowners who sell at a loss.

But take a look at the estimated budgetary costs, compared to some other things they wouldn't agree to:

Tax breaks for corporations reduces budget by $85.3 billion.

Food stamp extensions would have cost only $8.7 billion.

Unemployment extension for 3 months would cost $6.4 billion.

I don't understand why Democrats agreed to this.   The three votes against the bill were all cast by conservative senators.

Please explain this to me.

Ralph