SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"The GOP wants to make food and healthcare unaffordable and inaccessible for the most vulnerable people in our country," said Rep. Summer Lee. "Make no mistake on who they're serving."
Congressional Republicans are reportedly considering new work requirements for recipients of Medicaid and nutrition assistance as well as spending caps for the programs as potential ways to counteract the massive cost of their tax agenda, which would primarily benefit the rich and large corporations.
The Washington Postreported Monday that Republicans, who are poised to take full control of the federal government come January, "have begun preliminary discussions about making significant changes to Medicaid, food stamps, and other federal safety net programs to offset the enormous cost of extending" soon-to-expire elements of the regressive tax law that President-elect Donald Trump signed in year one of his first White House term.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this year that an extension of the 2017 tax cuts would add $4.6 trillion to the U.S. deficit over the next decade. Republicans have made clear that tax legislation is a top priority in the next Congress, and they're preparing to use a fast-track procedure known as reconciliation to ram a new round of tax cuts through.
According to the Post, members of Trump's transition team have discussed with GOP lawmakers and aides the possibility of adding punitive new work requirements and spending caps to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Research and real-world experience have consistently shown that work requirements do virtually nothing to boost employment while making it harder for people in need to receive aid.
"To pay for tax cuts for their billionaire donors, the GOP wants to make food and healthcare unaffordable and inaccessible for the most vulnerable people in our country," Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) wrote in response to the Post's reporting. "Make no mistake on who they're serving."
"We already knew the push to cut taxes for the wealthy next year was going to be costly. Now we're learning that deep cuts to critical programs are on the agenda to help pay for them."
Following an election in which grocery costs were a leading concern of many voters, the Post reported that Republican lawmakers are "discussing stripping presidential authority to recalculate benefits" for SNAP, the nation's highly effective hunger-reducing tool that helps millions afford food each year.
"Republicans argue that if they eliminate that authority and hemmed in SNAP benefits—which increase automatically with inflation—that should count as reducing the deficit by tens of billions of dollars, according to some estimates," the Post noted.
As for Medicaid, the newspaper detailed preliminary GOP discussions to halt Biden administration efforts to help people who lost coverage due to the post-pandemic purge, adding a work requirement similar to SNAP's, and conducting more frequent eligibility checks—which could result in more people losing access to the program.
House Budget Committee Chair Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) openly made the case last week for what he called a "responsible and reasonable work requirement" for Medicaid, the Post observed.
Estimated savings from such changes come nowhere near offsetting the huge projected cost of extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts for individuals and handing additional tax breaks to big corporations. On the campaign trail, Trump proposed reducing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%, a change that would give the 100 largest U.S. corporations a combined tax cut of $48 billion a year.
Trump's tax agenda would also disproportionately benefit the wealthiest individuals in the U.S. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) released an analysis last month showing that the tax proposals Trump floated during his bid for a second White House term would deliver annual tax cuts to the top 5% and tax hikes for the bottom 95%.
"We already knew the push to cut taxes for the wealthy next year was going to be costly," ITEP wrote on social media Monday. "Now we're learning that deep cuts to critical programs are on the agenda to help pay for them."
"Billionaires and big corporations are sharpening their knives in anticipation of huge tax cuts, already lobbying and donating to get the tax plan that gives them the biggest windfall."
Economic justice organizations are bracing for a grueling uphill battle as U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress lay the groundwork to swiftly enact another massive tax cut for the wealthy and large corporations, a move that would worsen inequality and add trillions of dollars to the nation's deficit.
With Trump soon to be in the White House, a Senate majority secured, and control of the House in sight, Republicans are wasting no time preparing for a legislative push to extend soon-to-expire provisions of their deeply regressive 2017 tax law and further cut taxes for rich Americans and large corporations.
In the months leading up to Tuesday's election, GOP lawmakers have been discussing plans to use the fast-track process known as reconciliation to dodge the Senate's 60-vote filibuster and ram through another round of tax cuts. Republicans are set to hold at least 53 Senate seats in the new Congress and are currently just seven seats short of a majority in the lower chamber.
Grover Norquist, a longtime anti-tax crusader and informal economic adviser to Trump, predicted that Republicans are going to try to push through tax legislation "very early."
"The House and Senate guys have been working on this together forever," Norquist toldThe Washington Post on Thursday.
During his 2024 campaign, Trump pledged to cut the statutory corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%, a change that would deliver close to $50 billion in tax breaks annually to the nation's largest companies. The president-elect also floated a number of additional proposals, including eliminating taxes on tips and Social Security benefits.
David Kass, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF), said Friday that "the incoming Congress faces a generational tax fight on the renewal of the disastrous Trump tax provisions that benefit the wealthiest Americans and corporations."
"Make no mistake, billionaires spent record amounts of money this election cycle to buy themselves a tax cut worth trillions—and the vast majority of Americans will pay the price," said Kass. "ATF and its coalition will fight for a fair tax code where the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share. We'll hold elected officials accountable if they attempt to redirect trillions from working families to the wealthy and big corporations."
"President Trump and his extreme agenda are the embodiment of inequality, fueling the division between the ultrawealthy and the rest of us."
An analysis published ahead of the election by the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) found that Trump's economic proposals would cut taxes for the richest 5% of Americans while raising them for the bottom 95%.
In a blog post on Friday, ITEP executive director Amy Hanauer wrote that a tax package that centers proposals Trump floated on the campaign trail "would be disastrous for families, communities, and the country."
"Billionaires and big corporations are sharpening their knives in anticipation of huge tax cuts, already lobbying and donating to get the tax plan that gives them the biggest windfall," Hanauer added. "Those forces have always had tremendous influence in Washington. Now they have more."
Lobbying related to expiring provisions of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law surged in the run-up to Tuesday's election, with corporate giants such as FedEx, Starbucks, Pfizer, and Toyota pressuring Congress to prevent parts of the law from lapsing.
In addition to further cutting corporate taxes and extending elements of the 2017 law, Trump is also weighing an attempt to cut capital gains taxes without congressional authorization.
"Toward the end of his first administration, senior White House officials and Treasury staff held extensive discussions about bypassing Congress with a unilateral $100 billion tax cut that would primarily benefit the wealthy," the Postreported Thursday. "Numerous Trump advisers have hoped to take another shot at it in his second term."
Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America, pledged after Trump's victory earlier this week that "we will work to stop any extension of President Trump's tax cuts for billionaires and the ultrarich."
"President Trump and his extreme agenda are the embodiment of inequality, fueling the division between the ultrawealthy and the rest of us," said Maxman. "His policies create chaos and only serve billionaires and corporations, not working people."
Patriotic Millionaires chair Morris Pearl sounded a similarly defiant note.
"This round went to the oligarchs," Pearl said of the 2024 election. "But rest assured, Patriotic Millionaires will rise to the fight. We've only just begun."
"The contrast between Harris and Trump on taxation could not be more clear," said the executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
As Republican nominee Donald Trump advances proposals that would further enrich the wealthiest Americans and profitable corporations, an analysis published Wednesday found that Vice President Kamala Harris' tax policy agenda would on average hike taxes on the nation's top 1% while cutting them for every other income group.
The new analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) follows its in-depth examination of Trump's tax proposals, which the group found would cut taxes for the richest 5% of Americans and raise them for everyone else.
"The contrast between Harris and Trump on taxation could not be more clear," said ITEP executive director Amy Hanauer. "Trump's plan would widen inequality by making middle-income and low-income families pay more on average while slashing taxes for the very wealthiest. The Harris proposals would cut taxes for most regular families while raising average taxes on the richest 1% with incomes of nearly a million a year or more."
ITEP found that if Harris' proposals—including an expansion of the Child Tax Credit, an extension of elements of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law for those with annual incomes below $400,000, and Medicare tax reforms that would raise levies for those with yearly incomes above $400,000—were in effect in 2026, "the richest 1% of Americans would receive an average tax increase equal to 4.1% of their income."
"Other income groups would receive tax cuts, including an average tax cut equal to 2.7% of income for the middle fifth of Americans and an average tax cut equal to 7% of income for the poorest fifth of Americans," ITEP said.
The group estimated that under Harris' proposals, the poorest 20% of Americans would see an average tax cut of $1,130 in 2026 while the richest 1% would see an average increase of $121,460.
ITEP also published a chart comparing the distributional impacts of the Harris and Trump tax plans:
The top 1% in the United States is currently richer than ever, collectively owning nearly $45 trillion in wealth as of the end of last year—a record high.
Rich Americans' rapid accumulation of wealth in recent years was fueled by the 2017 Trump-GOP tax cuts, which added over $2 trillion to the combined net worth of the nation's billionaires while doing little for the working class.
Steve Wamhoff, ITEP's federal policy director, said Wednesday that "if you are among the richest 1% who benefited a great deal from the Trump tax cuts or a foreign investor who benefited from Trump's corporate tax cuts, you would pay more under Harris' plan."
"But everyone else would pay less overall," said Wamhoff, "because Harris would use the tax code to help Americans with the costs of raising children, obtaining health insurance and housing, and other costs, and she would extend previously enacted policies to the extent that they benefit the middle class."