Voting on Taxes

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


Apparently all the Blue Dogs in the House are terrified of being asked to vote on a bill that would extend only the tax cuts on the middle class. Jonathan Chait comments:

So the issue here is that they’re afraid a vote to extend tax cuts will be turned into a vote to raise taxes, and thereby into a vote to raise taxes on the middle class. Okay, I kind of get that — this presumes massive communicatory incompetence by these Democrats, but that may be a fair assumption. So why not just hold two different votes? They can vote for both the universal tax cuts and the upper-class-only tax cuts. If both bills pass, Obama can sign the first and veto the second. If Republicans block the universal tax cuts, Democrats can make that their campaign issue.

Or, better yet, a vote on the middle-class-only cuts followed by a vote on the upper-only cuts. Either way, though, I assume this is too easy a solution and doesn’t work because there’s not enough time to schedule two votes? Or the Blue Dogs don’t want two votes? Or something. Not sure what, though.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest