Politics & Power Quote by Debbie Wasserman Schultz

The sentence is built like a civics lesson with a knife in it: we were ready to help ordinary people, but the other side tried to smuggle the rich onto the bill. Wasserman Schultz frames the fight as a hostage situation, not a negotiation. The giveaway is “certainly could have voted” - a calm, procedural verb choice that implies competence and willingness, designed to pre-empt the familiar accusation that Democrats are reflexively anti-tax-cut. She’s not rejecting tax cuts; she’s rejecting the price tag Republicans allegedly demanded.

The subtext is moral triage. “Middle-class” and “working families” are invoked as the deserving mainstream, a political identity that carries more weight than a precise income bracket. Against that, “the wealthiest 2 percent” is a deliberately narrow villain: small enough to sound unfair, specific enough to sound factual. Then comes the fiscal cudgel: “added $700 billion to the deficit.” That figure isn’t just accounting; it’s a character judgment. It says the GOP’s priorities are so skewed they’ll endanger the nation’s books to protect their donor class.

Context matters: this is the era of recurring tax-cut showdowns and post-recession deficit anxiety, when “making tax cuts permanent” was code for locking in policy before the next election cycle could unwind it. “That’s what was really disturbing” is less about shock than about delegitimizing the opposition’s motives. The intent is to shift blame for gridlock and recast a complex bargain as a simple choice between families and plutocrats.