Bush Tax Cuts: Progressives Prevail…For Now

Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/lasertrimguy/4368327019/sizes/m/in/photostream/">lasertrimman</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On Thursday, congressional Democrats took a big step toward resolving the fiercest battle of this lame-duck session: deciding the fate of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. By a vote of 234 to 188, Democrats passed a bill that will permanently extend the tax cuts for couples earning less than $250,000 and single earners making less than $200,000. The bill also slashes the capital gains and dividend taxes for the middle and working classes.

House Republicans vehemently opposed the measure, with House Minority Leader John Boehner calling it “chicken crap.” GOPers say the Bush tax cuts should be extended for all earners, while Democrats claimed the GOP was unfairly binding cuts for the middle class to those for the wealthy. As Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) put it on Thursday, “We must not let middle-income taxpayers remain hostage to a partisan agenda.”

It was progressive Democrats who took to the House floor on Thursday to rally behind relief for the middle class. Indeed, the fate of the Bush tax cuts represents progressives’ last major legislative effort before their power is curtailed, when the GOP takes control of the House and claims six more Senate seats. And, for the time being, they managed overcome Republican opposition, as well as detractors in their own party, to help the middle class.

On Thursday, progressive Democrats took to the House floor, one after another, arguing that middle-class tax cuts should not be inextricably linked to cuts for the richest Americans. Levin challenged House Republicans, saying, “You have a chance to stand up or back down on tax cuts for the middle income families of this country.”

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chair of the powerful House financial services committee, said he opposed a bill extending the cuts for the wealthy, and was confident his progressive colleagues would join him. “If they were to [extend cuts for the wealthy], there’d be a lot of us voting against it,” Frank told Mother Jones.

Thursday’s successful vote comes after months of pressure from the left. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, for instance, has demanded that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) extend the cuts for middle class families but to allow them to expire for single taxpayers making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000. In a September letter to Pelosi, 32 House progressives wrote that “it is critical that we pass the Obama middle-class tax cuts—not providing an even greater lift for the wealthiest Americans who don’t need it.” And in a November 12th letter, the co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus, Reps. Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Lynn Woolsey of California, said extending the tax cuts for the wealthy “would be a giveaway to the nation’s wealthiest people and would significantly increase government debt.”

The House’s tax cut bill now heads to the Senate, where its future is uncertain. Senate Republicans have said they won’t vote on a single piece of legislation until the tax cuts are extended for all earners, not just the middle class. One potential compromise comes from Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), who wants to prolong the cuts for everyone but Americans earning more than $1 million. But that proposal is unlikely to gain much traction, with Republicans refusing to consider any compromise. Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), the ranking member on the House ways and means committee, summed up his party’s sentiments well: compromise is “a terrible idea and a total non-starter.”

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), a member of Progressive Caucus who helped pass Thursday tax cut bill, was pessimistic about the bill’s chances in the Senate. “It’s almost impossible to move this in the Senate,” he told Mother Jones. Capuano knows how futile negotiations on tax cuts are with the GOP: earlier this fall, he offered to raise income threshold to $500,000, but that was soundly rejected. “I don’t have any hope at all that the Republican senators will compromise on this,” he went on. “All I can do is really build pressure from the outside.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate