Critics focused on the cuts for the wealthy and rarely, barely mentioned the middle-class families [View All]

[bigtree]

When President Obama first announced that he would be seeking a compromise on the extension of the Bush tax cuts, critics almost universally left middle-class families out of their argument, except to insist they wouldn't suffer; would get their tax breaks restored later; or could benefit in the long run by some future economic strategy that took advantage of the money that would be saved by allowing all of the cuts to expire.

None of those arguments made any provision at all for what would happen to middle-class families in the interim of a political argument in Congress over economic policy, or accounted for the certain obstruction by Senate republicans of any free-standing bill which would maintain only the middle-class portion of the tax breaks.

The President said, yesterday, in his announcement of the tax compromise, that 'average families' (the vast majority earning an average of $50,000 a year) could see an decrease of as much as $3,000 dollars in tax breaks if the cuts were allowed to expire in January. The prospect for restoring those tax breaks on their own in the next republican-controlled Congress are non-existent.

These families don't deserve to have their incomes held hostage to political arguing from either party. That's why it was important for the President to step in and forge a compromise that allowed those tax incentives and breaks to continue; a vital need for these tens of millions of families during this economic collapse we're suffering in many parts of the nation.

President Obama put these middle-class families and workers at the forefront of his efforts. The President stated from the beginning that middle-class families and their ability to weather their personal economies were his primary concern; especially when the hit on their incomes threatened to occur at the end of the holiday season.

The amount of money that stood to be eviscerated from these families' incomes by the federal government was regularly dismissed as insignificant by critics who insisted the amounts were paltry and the long term benefits of denying them those funds would be recouped by some future economic strategy. That may well be so, but there's a question of just how much of an economic revolution is forthcoming with the balance of power, influence, and motivation having just shifted toward the conservative opposition.

It's just not realistic to assume that these tens of millions of Americans could just wait for some future economic benefit of some dubious legislative effort to trickle down in the form of prosperity for all. That's why the President fought for and obtained record tax relief in his 2008 stimulus bill. That's why the President is so intent on defending the level of middle-class taxation that his own financial relief and incentives have supplemented.

In the debate ahead, it should not be forgotten that there are real world consequences and effects to changes in economic policy on vulnerable, middle and lower-income Americans who make up over 95% of wage earning families. That's what the President is focused on in his controversial efforts at compromise in the present tax debate. Those vulnerable middle-class families caught in the way of our politics should be at the forefront of critics' advocacy, as well.