

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
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 new House bill would disproportionately benefit the well-off—and harm the financial well-being of millions of working Americans, including Black women like me.
In early 2018, I remember sitting at my kitchen table, trying to make sense of how the 2017 Trump tax law was supposed to help families like mine.
I’d read headlines promising “middle class tax relief.” But when tax season rolled around, there was little relief to be found—especially for me, a Black woman navigating caretaking for elderly parents and a demanding career. My refund was smaller, my deductions had vanished, and the math simply didn’t add up.
It was clear then, as it is now: the Trump tax cuts weren’t designed with people like me in mind.
Let’s be clear: The 2017 Trump tax cuts failed Black women—and millions of others—the first time around. They widened inequality, rewarded the wealthy, and ignored the economic realities of everyday families.
Now as more GOP tax cuts for the rich move through Congress, history is poised to repeat itself. The bill would disproportionately benefit the well-off—and harm the financial well-being of millions of working Americans, including Black women like me.
Instead, lawmakers should embrace the “Black Women Best” framework and take a different path. Coined by Janelle Jones, the principle is that when Black women are thriving, then the economy is truly working for everyone.
For example, when the 2017 tax cuts were passed, most of the benefits went to wealthy, white households. Had lawmakers considered the financial realities of Black women, who are typically underpaid, they could have made a package better designed for all those who need the most help—not just Black women, but everyone struggling to make ends meet.
Refundable tax credits like the Child Tax Credit (CTC) are one of the most direct ways the government supports working families. When structured fairly, they give families a much-needed financial boost.
The 2017 tax law increased the CTC from $1,000 to $2,000 per child. But many families receive far less because it restricted the refundable part of the credit for those with modest earnings. That left out many of the lowest-income families—including 45% of Black children (double the share of their white peers)—whose parents didn’t earn enough to qualify.
In 2021, President Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act, which temporarily restructured the CTC to make it larger and fully refundable. For the first time, all the families at the bottom received the full credit. The results were stunning: Child poverty hit record lows.
But that progress was short-lived. The expanded credit has not been renewed, and child poverty shot right back up.
This time around, the House temporarily boosted the CTC to $2,500. But limits on the refundable portion would be continued, meaning 17 million of the lowest-income children in America will still be left out.
Using the “Black Women Best” framework would make those expanded benefits permanent—not just because it’s the right thing to do for Black families, but because it lifts up the entire economy.
But instead, in this way and others, the bill favors the already wealthy.
Another significant example is the bill’s deduction for income people receive from “pass-through” businesses. Rather than pay a corporate income tax, these business owners pay taxes on their profits through their personal taxes. The 2017 tax law created a 20% deduction for this kind of income—and now lawmakers want to permanently increase it to 23%.
Increasing this deduction means Congress is giving handouts to those already holding the keys to wealth. A Treasury report showed a jarring 90% of the people who received this benefit were white. Only 5% of the benefits went to Hispanic taxpayers—and just 2% to Black taxpayers.
Let’s be clear: The 2017 Trump tax cuts failed Black women—and millions of others—the first time around. They widened inequality, rewarded the wealthy, and ignored the economic realities of everyday families. Repeating those mistakes in 2025 would be more than negligent—it would be a deliberate choice to uphold a broken system.
But there’s another way. When Black women thrive, everyone wins. It’s time for our tax code to reflect that truth.
"The Trump tax scam is a grift for the ultrarich, including those who are in charge of passing this legislation themselves, and a betrayal to hardworking Americans everywhere," said the head of Accountable.US.
As U.S. President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans' so-called "Big Beautiful Bill" heads to the Senate, a watchdog group on Tuesday released a report highlighting that dozens of GOP members of Congress worth a total of $2.5 billion are set to benefit from the package, which would cut food and healthcare benefits for millions of working-class Americans.
The group, Accountable.US, found that the top 10 richest Republican senators and top 25 richest GOP members of the House of Representatives have a collective net worth of over $1.1 billion and over $1.4 billion, respectively, "allowing them to take advantage of tax breaks granted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that they are currently seeking to extend."
"While pushing for more tax cuts to line their own pockets," the report notes, "many of the richest Republican members are pushing for draconian cuts to the very social programs that millions of their constituents rely on," including federal student aid, Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
According to Accountable.US, "6.3 million constituents represented by the top 10 richest senators and 2.1 million constituents represented by the top 25 richest representatives use SNAP and are at risk of losing their food security."
Additionally, "9.2 million constituents represented by the top 10 richest senators and 4 million constituents represented by the top 25 richest representatives use Medicaid and are at risk of losing critically needed healthcare," the report warns.
The watchdog also found that 3 million and 930,000 federal student aid grants were given to constituents within these lawmakers' states and districts, respectively, and proposed cuts threaten "to price students out of pursuing higher education."
The richest Republican senator, by a significant margin, is Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, who made his money from the nation's for-profit healthcare system before serving as governor of his state. As of mid-May, his estimated net worth was around half a billion dollars, according to the new report.
Nine of the 10 senators—all but Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah)—"sit on five committees instrumental in shaping budget reconciliation," the report points out, as the upper chamber takes up the package following its passage in the House last week.
"As Trump's Big Beautiful Bill moves to the Senate, we must make it clear: There is nothing 'beautiful' about giving huge tax breaks to billionaires while cutting healthcare, nutrition, and education for working families. It is grossly immoral and, together, we must defeat it," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has been traveling the country for his Fighting Oligarchy Tour,
said on social media Tuesday.
Just two House Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio, joined Democrats in opposing the bill, and GOP Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, voted present.
All other Republicans present voted in favor of the bill—even though, as Accountable.US detailed last week, a dozen wrote to GOP leadership last month saying that they represent "districts with high rates of constituents who depend on Medicaid," so they "cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations."
The watchdog stressed that six of those Republican lawmakers—Reps. Rob Bresnahan of Pennsylvania, Rob Wittman of Virginia, Jen Kiggans of Virginia, Young Kim of California, Juan Ciscomani of Arizona, and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey—could directly benefit from the expansion of the "pass-through deduction" in the package.
Meanwhile, Tuesday's report calls out the richest House GOP members, led by Rep. Vern Buchanan of Florida, and Rep. Darrell Issa of California, who are each worth nearly a quarter-billion dollars.
"The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is the definition of promises made and promises kept," Buchanan, vice chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement after last week's vote. "This is a commonsense, pro-growth, pro-family, America First bill. We will not stop fighting until we get this bill across the finish line and to the president's desk."
Of the top 25 Republicans in the House, by estimated net worth, 19 sit on five key panels, the report states.
"The richest Republicans in Congress are happy to raise costs for millions of their own constituents and jeopardize healthcare for millions more, while they get a tax cut for themselves," said Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk in a statement. "The Trump tax scam is a grift for the ultrarich, including those who are in charge of passing this legislation themselves, and a betrayal to hardworking Americans everywhere."
It is high time for elected leaders to admit publicly that tax increases can sometimes be necessary to allow the government to continue or even expand vital programs.
The tax cuts enacted during the first Trump administration were scheduled to sunset at the end of 2025, returning us to the higher pre-2017 tax levels.
President Donald Trump now wants Congress to renew these tax cuts. But despite deep proposed reductions in many vital programs, extending the 2017 tax rates would guarantee a huge 10-year increase in the national debt.
With only a one vote majority, House Republicans have passed a bill doing exactly this. One must hope that the Senate will not go along with this irresponsible bill.
Which would Americans prefer? To pay somewhat higher taxes but live in a thriving economy, or pay lower taxes but live in a depressed economy?
In today's circumstances, letting the reduced taxes die a natural death would be the best possible action. Although pre-2017 tax levels were far from perfect, restoring them would substantially reduce annual deficits.
This wouldn't require Congress to do anything, which is what Congress does best.
In 2017 we were told that the tax cuts would stimulate so much additional economic activity that the reduced tax rates applied to the stronger economy would "pay" for the cuts. Instead, they drove up the national debt.
The draconian program cuts that are supposed to help pay for extending the 2017 tax rates will injure many people who voted for the new administration.
What are Republican legislators more interested in: reducing budget shortfalls, or reducing the taxes of their wealthy campaign donors?
If balancing the budget were their priority, they would be willing to consider tax increases in order to avoid slashing services for America's less fortunate people—Medicaid, food stamps, housing support, taking care of veterans. And they certainly wouldn't reduce the Internal Revenue Service enforcement budget, which brings in several tax dollars for each dollar spent.
Many Republicans have taken the "Norquist Pledge" never to vote for tax increases, a pledge which is so unwise that it amounts to political malpractice. There can be situations where reducing taxes is desirable, but no responsible leader who has taken Norquist's pledge could ever vote to reduce taxes.
Voting to reduce taxes would require them to make two false assumptions. First, that they can identify exactly how much the reductions should be. And second, that new circumstances will never arise where the reductions need to be reversed.
Letting the 2017 tax reductions expire will be the only way that Republican politicians who have unwisely taken the "pledge" can act responsibly without violating the pledge, since they would not need to vote for the increased taxes that the expiration of the reductions would automatically produce.
It is high time for elected leaders to admit publicly that tax increases can sometimes be necessary to allow the government to continue or even expand vital programs.
Whacking programs like Medicaid is an especially bad idea at a time when displacement of workers by artificial intelligence (AI) means that fewer and fewer jobs will be secure. These former workers will lose their job-related medical insurance, putting their health and that of their families in jeopardy. Many ill people will die prematurely, if they haven't starved first thanks to fewer food stamps.
Everybody else would also be damaged if, as is likely, this results in a major recession.
Medical care is now about one sixth of our economy. Doctors and hospitals employ large numbers of people and are now substantial parts of many local economies. The closure of hospitals caused by reductions in Medicaid will gravely harm these localities. Abruptly injuring one sixth of our economy is not going to be a great idea!
Which would Americans prefer? To pay somewhat higher taxes but live in a thriving economy, or pay lower taxes but live in a depressed economy?
People understandably don't like taxes. Equally understandably, politicians like to tell voters what they want to hear. But they also have a duty to tell the public the truth and to educate voters about where their bread is truly buttered.
One way or another, we all need to be reminded of the old but true saying: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. TANSTAAFL!