Skip to content

“Doing this will cost Democrats control of the Congress in 2022”

“Doing this will cost Democrats control of the Congress in 2022”

February 5, 2021 (Posted by) Don Pelton

Edtor’s Note: Why should Biden act like a Republican Lite?

‘Politically It’s Suicidal’: Frustration Grows as Biden Entertains Narrower Eligibility for $1,400 Checks’

“Let’s be really, really clear. Doing this will cost Democrats control of the Congress in 2022 and the White House in 2024… It is a colossally bad idea.”

by Jake Johnson, staff writer for Common Dreams
     Republished under a Creative Commons License
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del) walk out of the West Wing after meeting with President Joe Biden at the White House February 3, 2021 in Washington, D.C.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del) walk out of the West Wing after meeting with President Joe Biden at the White House February 3, 2021 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

A growing chorus of progressive lawmakers, advocacy groups, political commentators, and policy experts is forcefully pushing back against an effort by Senate Democrats to significantly narrow eligibility for a new round of $1,400 direct payments, a move that could deny financial relief to struggling families who received both of the stimulus checks approved during Trump’s presidency.

Ignoring warnings that excluding millions of people from the full $1,400 would be politically disastrous—as well as morally unacceptable and economically foolish—President Joe Biden said this week that he would be “OK with” lowering the annual income cutoff for the checks. Biden discussed limiting eligibility for the payments with Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.) at the White House on Wednesday.

“Try explaining to the millions who will end up with less why this was done, why White House economists sided with the Chamber of Commerce and the president decided to break a campaign promise while attracting no Republican support for his plan.”
—David Dayen, The American Prospect

With Biden’s go-ahead, Senate Democrats are currently considering a plan under which—according to the Washington Post—only individuals earning $50,000 a year or less, heads of household earning $75,000 or less, and married couples earning a combined $100,000 or less would be eligible for full payments. Eligible parents would also receive $1,400 per child under the plan, which has not been finalized.

“Let’s be really, really clear. Doing this will cost Democrats control of the Congress in 2022 and the White House in 2024,” Robert Cruickshank, campaign director at advocacy group Demand Progress, said of the push for stricter targeting. “There is nobody out there in America aside from a few wonks who want to limit these checks. It is a colossally bad idea.”

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the new chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was among those who cautioned that further restricting eligibility for the new round of payments could disqualify people who benefited from previous checks, which went in full to individuals earning up to $75,000 a year, heads of household earning up to $112,500, and married couples earning up to $150,000.

“I understand the desire to ensure those most in need receive checks,” Wyden told the Post‘s Jeff Stein, “but families who received the first two checks will be counting on a third check to pay the bills.”

In an episode of his podcast released Thursday, Matt Bruenig, founder of the People’s Policy Project, similarly warned that there could be “a big chunk of people who got the first Trump check, who got the second Trump check, and then they’re like, ‘Alright guys, a third check’s going out.’ And then they don’t get it because they had an income that was… low enough to qualify for the Trump checks but not low enough to qualify for the Biden checks.”

“It seems like it’s going to be a disaster,” said Bruenig.

In the eyes of progressives, the push to limit eligibility for the $1,400 payments—an approach advocated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—represents yet another backpedal by Biden and the Democratic Party from their vow to swiftly deliver $2,000 payments upon taking control of the U.S. Senate.

The Biden team has contended that the $600 checks approved during the final weeks of Trump’s presidency were a “down payment” on the $2,000 promise that would be completed by a new round of $1,400 checks—a narrative that many progressives say is misleading, given Democrats’ clear messaging in the run-up to the Senate runoffs in Georgia last month.

While the Biden White House has said it is not open to lowering the size of the proposed $1,400 checks—as some Senate Republicans have suggested—the eligibility framework that Senate Democrats are considering would gradually phase out the payments for individuals who earn more than $50,000 a year, meaning that some middle-class people who have been hit hard by the pandemic would ultimately receive less than $1,400.

“I don’t care how super-slick you think your defense of a Democratic retreat on $2,000 checks is, nobody will buy it,” The Daily Poster‘s David Sirota tweeted Thursday. “People are facing starvation, eviction, and bankruptcy. The party will deliver or it should expect a voter backlash.”

Shannon Stagman, co-lead organizer of Empire State Indivisible, said Wednesday that the $50,000 income threshold Senate Democrats are weighing is “comically low” and the party “should be ashamed of suggesting it.”

“This doesn’t even comport with their own argument about these checks,” Stagman added. “If the $1,400 check is the second in a two-part payment, you can’t change the terms before you deliver it.”

Citing a tax policy expert from the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, the Post reported Thursday that under the eligibility framework Senate Democrats are currently considering, “about 71 percent of Americans would get the full benefits and another 17 percent would get the partial benefit.”

“This is less than Biden’s initial proposal for the payments to go to individuals earning up to $75,000 and married couples earning up to $150,000, which would result in about 85 percent getting full payments,” the Post noted.

“What we have got to do is understand this crisis impacts the middle class, it impacts the working class, it impacts lower-income people. We are in this together.”
—Sen. Bernie Sanders

The American Prospect‘s David Dayen argued Thursday that the effort to further curtail relief checks that are already targeted has little to no discernible upside for Democrats and potentially massive political and economic downsides.

“Who is this for?” Dayen asked. “Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the more tightly targeted checks would cost $420 billion, as opposed to $465 billion. That’s what we’re fighting over? $45 billion in a $1.9 trillion package, to deny middle-class people (almost definitionally speaking; they make just over the median income) relief? That’s the holdup?”

“There’s no economic case for this narrowing, and politically it’s suicidal,” Dayen wrote. “You’re taking the most popular part of the American Rescue Plan and chipping away at it for no good reason. Try explaining to the millions who will end up with less why this was done, why White House economists sided with the Chamber of Commerce and the president decided to break a campaign promise while attracting no Republican support for his plan. In the name of technocratic ‘targeting,’ you’re just cutting the benefit, and doing it for reasons of politics. It’s nonsensical.”

The ongoing and intensifying conflict over the direct payments comes as Senate Democrats are moving ahead with their plan to pass a coronavirus relief package through reconciliation, a process under which a unified Democratic caucus can pass legislation without any support from Republican lawmakers—a fact that has made the majority party’s effort to roll back eligibility for the checks all the more frustrating to progressives.

“What constituency wants this?” asked HuffPost‘s Zach Carter. “I’m generally skeptical about the political value of GOP buy-in, but this won’t even get you an optics win on bipartisanship. It’s just making the bill worse, because you can.”

In an interview on CNN late Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—the new chairman of the Senate Budget Committee—said Democrats should not weaken their coronavirus relief package in the hopes of attracting support from Republican senators, many of whom have been openly hostile to Biden’s relief plan. Asked whether he favors restricting eligibility for the proposed $1,400 checks, Sanders said he does not.

“The truth is, you could be a family making a $125,000 with a bunch of kids, you are struggling today,” said Sanders. “What we have got to do is understand this crisis impacts the middle class, it impacts the working class, it impacts lower-income people. We are in this together.”


Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Articles, Economics, Politics

Post navigation

PREVIOUS
Flynn and Powell Proposed Suspending Laws, Mobilizing the U.S. Government to Seize Dominion Voting Machines Around the Country
NEXT
The Unreliable Superpower: The World Welcomes Biden But Hedges Its Bets

Join Our Mailing List

Comments are closed.

CLICK IMAGE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION

DONATE TO THE FOOD BANK OF NEVADA COUNTY

(CLICK IMAGE)

DONATE TO NEVADA COUNTY RELIEF FUND (click image below)

Subscribe to Sierra Voices Journal

Jack Kornfield: A Steady Heart in Time of Corona Virus (Part I)

Erika Lewis, Shaye Cohn, Craig Flory – Got A Mind To Ramble

“Everlasting Arms”

Tara Brach: A Steady Heart in Time of Corona Virus (Part II)

Recent Posts

  • Bill Clinton Makes a Pathetic Attempt to Retroactively Justify His Decision to Expand NATO
  • The Ukraine War Seen “from 30,000 feet”
  • Former NATO Analyst & Top UN Official Says THIS Is The REAL Reason For War In Ukraine
  • DeSantis’ Attack on Disney Shows how Fascism Progresses Toward the Later Stages of Tyranny
  • The Man Who Predicted Russia Ukraine War

Recent Comments

  • Putin in Media Myth and Reality: Which is Which? on Ukraine War: A Bonanza for the Arms Industry
  • SVadmin on Countdown to World War III?
  • Pratima Basu on Scenes From Our Weekend at Lake Tahoe
  • IN PRAISE OF WARRIORS, NOT WAR on Celebrated to Death: Memorial Day Is Killing Us
  • SVadmin on How Suzanne Simard changed our relationship to trees

Archives

  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • November 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • December 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • January 2014
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009

Categories

  • Afghanistan
  • Aging
  • American Empire
  • Anti-Depressant
  • Arms Sales
  • Articles
  • Atlas Obscura
  • Authoritarianism
  • Black Lives
  • Black Lives Matter
  • Blog
  • Buddhism
  • Budget
  • Buskers
  • Capitalism
  • Carbon Offsets
  • Cartoon
  • China
  • Climate Change
  • Compassion
  • Constitution
  • Corona Virus
  • Corruption
  • Cosmology
  • Coup
  • COVID-19
  • Democracy
  • Depression
  • Disenfranchisement
  • Drought
  • Economics
  • Education
  • Election Fraud
  • Empire
  • Environment
  • Extinction
  • Farming
  • Fascism
  • Filibuster
  • Fire!
  • Food Insecurity
  • Foreign Policy
  • Forest Ecology
  • Forest Management
  • Fracking
  • Gardening
  • Gender
  • GOP
  • Great Movies
  • Groundwater
  • Halloween
  • Health Care
  • High Country News
  • History
  • Humor
  • Hunger
  • Idaho-Maryland Mine
  • Ignorance
  • Immigration
  • Indigenous Peoples' Day
  • Insects
  • Israel
  • Labor
  • Lobbying
  • Local
  • Lunar Influence
  • Marijuana
  • Masks
  • Medical Care
  • Men
  • Men's Issues
  • Mental Health
  • Middle Class
  • Military Industrial Complex
  • Mining
  • MMT
  • Modern Monetary Theory
  • Moral Obligations
  • Music
  • Native Americans
  • NATO
  • Neoliberalism
  • New Cold War
  • Nuclear War
  • Nutrition
  • Oligarchy
  • Palestine
  • Pandemic
  • Parenting
  • Peace
  • Pharmaceuticals
  • Physics
  • Poetry
  • Police
  • Politics
  • Populism
  • Press
  • Race
  • Religion
  • Republican Derangement
  • Reviews
  • Revolution
  • Right-wing terrorism
  • Rights of Nature
  • Rise Gold
  • Rivers
  • Romance
  • Russia
  • Russiagate
  • Science
  • Slavery
  • Sleep
  • Smoke Inhalation
  • Student Debt
  • Summer
  • Technology
  • The Hartmann Report
  • Trump Virus
  • Tuba Skinny
  • Tyranny
  • Ukraine
  • Uncategorized
  • Unipolar vs. Multipolar
  • Vaccine Refusal
  • Vaccine Safety
  • Voting
  • War
  • War on Government
  • Water
  • Watersheds
  • Wells
  • Wildfires
  • Winter
  • Women's Issues
  • Work
  • Yemen

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
© 2022   All Rights Reserved.