Bill Statistics

The Middle Class Position

The middle class opposes.

How They Voted

47% with middle class
52% against middle class
1% did not vote
Pie Chart

Grades

Grade C
Senate

The Senate receives a grade of C for its support of the middle class on this piece of legislation.

50 Senators voted for the middle-class position; 50 voted against.

Grade D
House

The House receives a grade of D for its support of the middle class on this piece of legislation.

200 Representatives voted for the middle-class position; 231 voted against.

H.R. 2

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

Introduced:
02.27.2003 [House]
Enacted into Law: 05.28.2003
Senate: Yea-50, Nay-50
House: Yea-231, Nay-200
The Legislation: 

The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 was the second substantial tax cut proposed by President Bush, who said it would stimulate the economy and spur domestic job growth by putting more money into the pockets of American consumers to spend in local economies. Among its many features, this tax cut would lower the overall tax burden on Americans by: 1) eliminating the “marriage penalty” for joint filers; 2) increasing the standard tax deduction for small businesses, and; 3) reducing the capital gains tax on dividends.

The Middle-Class Position: 

The Middle Class Opposes: The Jobs and Growth Tax Act of 2003, enacted in May 2003, was initially portrayed as a tax cut for struggling working-class Americans, but has translated into a law favoring the rich at the expense of everyone else. While middle-class Americans with incomes of $35,000 enjoyed a tax savings of roughly $800 as a result of this law, according to the Economic Policy Institute, those with incomes above $1.4 million received a tax cut of $81,000–more than 100 times as much. In fact, over the next four years, the top one percent of income earners will receive almost 40 percent of the total tax relief from this legislation, while the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers will receive just nine percent. This law provides neither the economic support required by middle-class American families struggling with soaring fixed costs, debt, and unemployment, nor the surge in consumer spending required to stimulate the sagging economy because less than 10 percent of its benefits go to those most likely to spend it.

From the Experts: 

“When you listen to tax-cut rhetoric, remember that giving one class of taxpayer a ‘break’ requires – now or down the line – that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties. In other words, if I get a break, someone else pays. Government can’t deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole. It can, however, determine who pays for lunch. [In this piece of legislation] the Senate handed the bill to the wrong party.” – Warren Buffet, “Dividend Voodoo.” Common Dreams (May 20, 2003)

“I would not have done it.” – Paul O’Neill, Former U.S. Treasury Secretary (January, 2004)

Beyond this Bill: 

In his last State of the Union address, the President asked Congress to make the tax cuts included in the Jobs and Grow Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 permanent. Legislators committed to the economic stability of the middle class should oppose any attempt to make these cuts permanent, and instead draft legislation to roll back the inequitable portions of this law while directing more tax relief to struggling middle-class and working-class families.

Maine New Hampshire Vermont Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Delaware Maryland West Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida Alabama Mississippi Tennessee Virginia Kentucky Ohio Indiana Michigan Illinois Wisconsin Louisiana Arkansas Missouri Iowa Minnesota Oklahoma Kansas Nebraska South Dakota North Dakota Texas Colorado New Mexico Arizona Utah Wyoming Hawaii Alaska Montana Nevada Idaho California Oregon Washington