Democrat congresswoman Kuster’s press release on why she opposed the reforms is typical.
“I support real tax reform that starts with middle-class families and small businesses,” said Congresswoman Kuster. “Unfortunately, the plan forced through Congress by Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell is a missed opportunity that overwhelmingly benefits corporate special interests at the expense of the majority of Americans. The fact that provisions for the middle class expire while those for corporate special interests are permanent makes clear Congressional Republicans’ priorities.”
But aren’t Democrats the only reason tax cuts for the middle-class had to expire.
Yes, according to reporting by the Washington Examiner:
Why were these tax breaks made temporary? Because without 60 votes, no bill can pass the Senate that increases the deficit on paper more than 10 years beyond the budget window. In other words, by withholding their support from the bill, Democrats forced individual income tax relief to be temporary; then they turned around and claimed that the tax bill was the worst legislation in history because the individual income tax relief was temporary.
If Democrats had supported the original Bill the middle-class tax cuts would already be permanent.
Well, now they will have their chance. Republican Tax Reform 2.0 makes them permanent.
House Republicans have proposed a “Tax Reform 2.0” package, whose main plank is to make permanent the popular changes to the individual income tax. The bill would extend the cuts in income tax rates, the doubling of the child tax credit, and the new higher standard deduction into the indefinite future.
That sounds like a pretty good deal for the “middle-class.”
When this comes up for a vote will Democrats vote against it and why will they oppose what they have claimed for so long to support?