Despite the Congressional Budget Office’s warning that extending the Trump tax cuts would result in a $4.7 trillion national debt increase over the next ten years, Republicans are committed to pursuing this course through a party-line reconciliation process. This would mark the fourth significant implementation of trickle-down tax cuts by the party in recent history, all of which have failed to meet their promises of widespread prosperity.

The cycle is distressingly familiar. Every time, the American public has been promised that tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations would spark enough economic growth to benefit all citizens, even to the point of paying for themselves. On each occasion, the outcome has been identical: middle-class wages stagnate, wealth consolidates at the top, and the budget deficit inflates significantly.

When the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed with bold assertions of bringing broad prosperity through trickle-down economics, it failed to deliver any such benefits. The tax savings from individual income in the 2017 cuts substantially favored the highest earners, with the top 1 percent experiencing over $50,000 in reduced taxes while the bottom 40 percent saw savings of $380 annually or less. The reduction in corporate tax rates mostly funded stock buybacks benefiting shareholders over workers.

With the wealthiest 10 percent owning more than 90 percent of all stocks, there is no plausible argument that this tax cut aided the vast majority of Americans financially. Any politician advocating for the tax cut’s extension on the premise of assisting the middle class is either deluded or actively misleading the public to serve the interests of the wealthy elite.

What is even more concerning are the spending cuts Republicans plan to accompany an extension of the Trump tax cuts. They intend to implement substantial reductions in Medicare benefits, impose stricter limitations on Medicaid eligibility, end healthcare subsidies helping working families afford coverage, and slash food assistance programs crucial for struggling Americans.

The reasoning behind these actions is simple—Republicans need to offset the tax cuts’ costs to satisfy deficit hawks within their ranks. In essence, they are executing a reverse Robin Hood scenario, granting tax breaks to the wealthy while depriving resources from the less fortunate to cover the expenses.

Given their status as the minority party in Congress, Democrats may be unable to prevent this scenario. Nevertheless, they can start to promote a superior strategy to the American public, one that can enable them to regain control of the House in the upcoming elections and the presidency in 2028. This strategy entails “middle-out economics,” which entails a shift back to the economic matters that originally defined the Democratic Party, especially when it had the support of the working class who voted in alignment with their economic benefits.

A middle-out economic doctrine acknowledges a fundamental truth that inclusive economic growth does not stem from trickle-down mechanisms but from a robust middle class with disposable income to spend. When middle-class consumers have financial resources, businesses gain patrons, resulting in job generation and an economic upsurge that benefits everyone.

Unlike trickle-down economics, middle-out policy boasts a proven track record of success. The US experienced remarkable economic expansion during periods when there were significantly higher top marginal tax rates. The post-World War II economic boom, which led to the creation of the American middle class, took place under top marginal tax rates of 70-90 percent.

To be clear, advocating for middle-out economics is not about penalizing success; it is about formulating fiscal policies that ensure economic inclusivity for all, not just the elite. It is about recognizing that the Republican top-down technique is perpetually ineffective, merely concentrating wealth while the remainder of the population faces challenges.

Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College and State University. His opinions do not necessarily align with those of that or any other academic institution.